RE: [gtk-list] Re: Linking problem with FreeBSD

[Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai wxs nl>]

On 08-Feb-99 Marc van Kempen wrote:
>> On 08-Feb-99 Marc van Kempen wrote:

>> > I'm not sure about my linker version, I can't get to the sources right
>> > now.
>> 
>> ld --version is our friend, my guess, since the linker is from 1994 or
>> something, it will be the same

> (marc@nietzsche) > ld --version
> ld: invalid command option `--version'
> 
> I'm afraid the aout gnu tools are really old ;-) Are you sure the 
> elf version is the same (i.e. that old)?

[asmodai@daemon] (18) $ ld --version
GNU ld 2.9.1
Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

>> > (Jeroen do you know someone to talk to about this, who knows what the
>> > deal is with aout?)
>> 
>> OK, throw the ball up in -hackers, else try to contact John Polstra,
>> although the man's very busy. My understanding and use of FreeBSD (and
>> other BSD's started somewhere when 2.2.6 came out, and I have been
>> following CURRENT from the start actually, so I'm more focused on ELF).
>> 
> I know John has been busy with the ELF stuff, I was more thinking of 
> someone in the ports section to help or so, but it never hurts to
> try -hackers ofcourse. I'll try -ports first.

Could be, but hackers is for in depth technical discussion which IMHO would
be ideal to ask =)
 
>> > All I can say is that when gtk-config was still specifying -lgtk-1.1
>> > I could link without problems, and now it doesn't see the shared
>> > libraries anymore and links with the static ones.
>> 
>> Have ye looked at man ld, man ldconfig, man dlsym at least to get some
>> background info? That got my interest sparked in the ELF process. Please
>> let me know about the a.out process as soon as ye find something out
>> Marc
>> (I monitor -hackers though, plus a dozen others).
>> 
> 
> I have not yet investigated in depth, though I'm sure that:
> 
>       1. -lgtk-1.1 works
>       2. making a symlink from libgtk-1.1.so.14.1 to libgtk.so.14.1 works,
>          though this is not the preferred solution because of versioning
>          reasons.

Which is odd really. As far as John and some others explained to me, the
name before the .so shouldn't be a problem. The -.1.1 should be perfectly
legal (please do note that this is from a theorectical point of view
offcourse).  Ye might also want to look at ldconfig though since the linker
might be doing it's job correctly but the ldconfig might be lacking. 

>       3. storing the so name in aout shared libraries doesn't work and
>          is the reason why 2. is needed.

> I have just sent a message to -ports, I'll keep you updated.

I'll observe the lists.

---
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven        join #FreeBSD on Undernet
asmodai(at)wxs.nl       Time is merely a residue of Reality...
Network/Security Specialist      <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>
*BSD: Powered by Knowledge & Know-how <http://www.freebsd.org>