[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Excluding Dynamically Linked Libraries
From: |
Chuck Wolber |
Subject: |
Re: Excluding Dynamically Linked Libraries |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:06:13 -0800 (PST) |
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Chuck Wolber wrote on Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 07:33:22PM CET:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:23:00PM -0800, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> > > > [...] Yet, when I build it, the resulting binary still
> > > > requires libbz2 at runtime.
> > >
> > > I cannot guess the reason from your story.
>
> Me neither. Are you trying to just eliminate the dependency upon the
> shared library libbz2 or are you trying to operate out all bz2
> functionality from rpm? If the former, why don't you just link libbz2
> statically into the rpm executable? Same goes for other libraries, of
> course.
I do not want to statically link libbz2 into rpm. I want to remove it. I
also do not want it dynamically linked at runtime. The following should
not produce any output when I am done:
ldd ./rpm | grep libbz2
strings ./rpm | grep libbz2
> Please don't assume others have your build environment; not everyone
> uses the same base distribution that you do. The patches in that
> tarball look huge and complicated: you should not try to patch generated
> files such as configure, Makefile.in, and IMVHO you should not try to
> remove configure.ac.
I think you're "preaching to the converted" here. I would never patch
generated files for production use. Those patches are for proof of concept
only. They simply serve to eradicate all references of bz2 from the source
code to prove that it's not some errant code reference I am missing. I'm
quite amazed you actually took the time to look into them. They're ugly,
ignore them. Just take my word for it that they remove references to bz2
in the code in an effort to prove that it's not the RPM source code that
is causing the binary to require libbz2 dynamically at runtime.
> Please explain from a higher level point of view what your real
> objective is. Then we can maybe point out what's wrong with that
> objective, and _then_ it should be much easier to go into details in how
> the fixed objective can be realized.
I am trying to build rpm without any references to bz2 in it. Yes, I have
posted this to the rpm-devel list. At this point, I do not believe it is
an RPM code problem. I think it is an autotools issue. Somewhere,
someplace something is happening that causes ldd to show that libbz2 is
required for linking into rpm at runtime.
Thanks,
..Chuck..
--
http://www.quantumlinux.com
Quantum Linux Laboratories, LLC.
ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology
"The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply
social values more noble than mere monetary profit." - FDR