Re: dlopen() implementaiotn level (Re: Is gnome-dl required ??)

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org> writes:

> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Manish Singh wrote:
> 
> > > I don't know... i think it's got a good place in glib.. glib is a nice
> > > utility library to make for easier porting of apps and reducton in
> > > re-writing basic data structures (lists etc.)...
> > 
> > I don't think we should be bloating glib unecessarily. What does xdelta
> > need with a dl implementation? Conversely, a program that already has an
> > established, mature code base but wants dl stuff doesn't need to saddle
> > itself with glib.
> 
> hm, after spending some thoughts on this, i don't think it is a big
> burden on established programs that need a dl-wrapper to require GLib.
> since a lot of the glib stuff will be used by the dl-wrapper anyways,
> such as assertements and linked lists, i'd rather like to have a subdir
> in glib that builds a seperate library which holds the dlwrapper code
> and can take advantage of glib's code and configure stuff.
> 
> so basically i think we should create a glib/gmodule dir and have an
> additional libgmodule.so and gmodule.h installed.
> glib-config can be tweaked to recognize an aditional --gmodule flag
> and will then put out "-L/usr/local/lib -lgmodule-1.1 -lglib-1.1"
> if invoked as `glib-config --libs --gmodule`.

I'll leave the issue of where it goes to those who want GLIB
without GTK+. But you should look at how gnome-config is set
up for doing this:

Basically, it's pretty much like the above, except that there
is no -- on gmodule. The command line is

 gnome-config [--libs] [--cflags] [LIBS]

And it figures out what libraries/cflags are needed for everything in
LIBS - we don't have to get that fancy in glib-config, but it
would be nice to be compatible with that.

Regards,
                                        Owen