RPM and shared library support
Fri May 9 07:13:00 GMT 2003
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 12:02:50AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Nicholas Wourms wrote:
[Actually, I wrote the following paragraph, not Nicholas -- DA]
> >> Bottom line, folding in subordinate shared library support to the
> >> upstream RPM 4.x release might take a while. So, the question
> >> becomes: can we move on to shared RPM development libraries
> >> (/usr/lib/librpmdb*.dll) without support for subordinate shared library
> >> support?
> Q: Does librpm access any runctions in the supporting libraries, or is
> librpm independent of them -- and the dependency is derived from rpm.exe?
> That is, which is the correct dependency graph:
> libz --\
> libelf ---\____librpm----rpm.exe
> libdb ---/
> beecrypt --/
> librpm --\
> libz ---\
> libelf ----+ ----- rpm.exe
> libdb ---/
> beecrypt --/
It's actually like this:
libbz2--/ \ / |
\ / |
> If the former, then no -- you need to have DLL versions of the other
> four libs before you can build a shared librpm. If the latter, then
> yes -- librpm is independent of the other four.
Well, from the looks of it, we'll have to have shared libraries for
libbz2, libz, and libpopt first before I can release an rpm-devel
> > 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.
> Errm, hello? I'm the maintainer of the zlib package. (cygwin dll
> itself contains its own implementation of zlib, but it doesn't export
> the functions). Anyway, I'm VERY leery of modifying such a fundamental
> library on which so many other packages depend. I'll need lots of
> handholding and convincing to fork from the official 1.1.4 sources...
OK, so now it looks like rpm-devel will only need shared libs for libbz2
> > 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.
> One step at a time.
I don't quite understand this comment; do you mean that we don't need
rpm-devel? Actually, I'd like to see it released soon myself. I'm
deferring work on an apt-rpm port until the libbz2/libz/libpopt shared
lib situation is resolved for rpm-4.1. Does strategy actually make
I really hope this doesn't annoy Nicholas, but I'm prepared to volunteer
to crank out the next release (1.7) of popt, just so I can get my hands
on the libraries I'll need to push rpm-devel out the door, which in turn
will allow to me to move forward with an apt-rpm port.
> And I really think the rpm-devel/GPL issue is a red herring: we
> distribute the source (in -src.tar.bz2) for all the binaries that we
I agree with you on this one.
Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
email@example.com -- http://www.helixdigital.com
More information about the Cygwin-apps