RPM and shared library support

Dario Alcocer alcocer@helixdigital.com
Thu May 8 16:11:00 GMT 2003

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:19:51AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> I've already done it (modified the 4.1/4.2 builds to use external shared 
> libraries).  The plan is to add rpm's enhancements to each of those 
> packages.  The only thing we need to do is convince CGF to merge the 
> zlib patches, which I see as "harmless" additions anyhow, and we should 
> be set.  There is no reason to distribute redundant dlls, especially 
> since it sort of contridicts the point of using dll's in the first place.

Just curious, what needs to be done about the --with-uniquename
configure option passed to BerkeleyDB by the RPM configuration? Can RPM
(both programs and development libraries) be linked against the standard

> I've already had one-on-one conversations with Jeff Johnson, and he's 
> filled me in on the nitty-gritty.  As I stated before, there's no rush 
> and I think we can get shared lib support in the next version of rpm.

Well, I don't mean to *rush* you, but I really want to generate a
rpm-devel-4.1 package ASAP. How long will it be before the new rpm-4.2
can be released? I'm very eager to get RPM 4.1 development libraries
done for my own purposes.

If you think it might take you awhile, maybe I can take a stab at
getting rpm-devel-4.1 working with shared libraries, and wait for you
for rpm-4.2.

> The main problem I see is the fact that that damn Ulrich Drepper forked 
> libelf into his bastard "elfutils", which use an older libelf and in 
> which libtool was forceably removed from the build.

Hmm, maybe we can use ELFIO or libbfd instead? I wonder why rpm even
needs to parse ELF files directly, instead of using binutils.

Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
alcocer@helixdigital.com -- http://www.helixdigital.com

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list