RPM and shared library support
Fri May 9 17:00:00 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
>>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:
>>libelf ----+ ----- rpm.exe
> It's actually like this:
> libbz2--/ \ / |
> \ / |
> +---librpmdb--+ /
> / /
>>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
Yup. However, later on we can work on getting rpm to use the default
>>>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
>>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
> 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
More information about the Cygwin-apps