Re: [PATCH]: Re: [Nautilus-list] Re: must not ship Nautilus 1.0.4 until we fix FAM support

On 17Jun2001 11:58PM (+0200), Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org> writes:
> > On 17Jun2001 01:41PM (+0200), Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > > 
> > > [Put Ramiro in CC for approval]
> > > 
> > > The problem was the wrong assumption that g_module_build_path() would 
> > > lookup the module for you. It does not.   
> > > 
> > > Can I commit ?
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Yoann,
> > 
> > Your patch is not correct. g_module_build_path will result in a name
> > like "", which should get looked up in LD_LIBRARY_PATH and
> > the system hardcoded library locations by g_module_open (). 
> This is wrong.
> In several distribution, there is only a .so if you installed the
> developpement package. This patch permit to lookup*.

Yeah, I'm just explaining what it does. I agree that relying on a
devel package is wrong, but your change is wrong in even more serious

> > Your patch
> > will look up the library only in "/usr" and "/usr/lib", 
> You mean /usr/local/lib & /usr/lib


> > which is wrong
> > when you have fam built in a custom prefix (as for example I do)
> This imply adding a configuration option to Nautilus to tell where
> the fam library is...
The patch should search the same path that dlopen() would. I'm not
sure if this is possible to do in a totally portable way though. But I
expect shared objects to be found when I list their directory in

> > , in
> > addition to unnecessarily scanning a bunch of huge directories.
> We don't have the choise. Please read the rest of the thread.
> We need this lookup.

I don't think it's necessary. I think you could try loading
"", and then "fam" expanded by gmodule internally (so it
adds the system-specific prefix) if that fails would do the trick.
> > Further, Nautilus is meant to work with a particular version of FAM,
> > which appears as on Linux, and your patch just checks for
> > "libfam" as a prefix, so it could find "" which would not
> > work, or heck, even "".
> will not work... As far as I remember Darin said in a previous 
> mail (search the archives) that the lookup function would be the good way 
> to go.
> You can't assume a given version will be installed on a system,
> so we have to rely on binary compatibility.

A name of is explicitly stating that the library is _not_
binary compatible with
> Yes, and as soon the fam will be distributed using package and that
> FAM soname will change, Nautilus will broke. No, I seriously think
> we should rely on binary compatibility, which will give us more chance
> of having Nautilus using FAM on whatever system than otherwise...

The soname is precisely what tells you whether the library is binary



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]