RPM and shared library support

[Nicholas Wourms]

alcocer@helixdigital.com wrote:
> 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 --/
>>
>>or
>>
>>librpm   --\
>>libz     ---\
>>libelf   ----+ ----- rpm.exe
>>libdb    ---/
>>beecrypt --/
> 
> 
> It's actually like this:
> 
> libz----\
>          +-librpmio---------------librpm
> libbz2--/        \                 /  |
>                   \               /   |
>                    +---librpmdb--+    /
>                   /                  /
>            libpopt------------------+
> 
> 
>>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
> package.

Yup.  However, later on we can work on getting rpm to use the default 
libdb4.

> 
>>>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
> and libpopt.

Ok, sorry Chuck, I forgot...  Anyways, I'll fix up a proposal and 
explination to satisfy your concerns.  Then we can debate the finer 
points of the code to your satisfaction.

> 
>>>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.

Yes... Yes...  I know, I had a longer timetable in mind, though.

> 
> 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
> sense?

Probably...

> 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.

Actually it does annoy me, but since you are so pell-mell to get it out 
the door, I'l go ahead and fix up the packages for release this 
afternoon.  Ok?

Cheers,
Nicholas