[Fwd: [Bug 104677] gnucash outdated]

[Derek Atkins]

The problem here is that the load code (not sure if it's in QOF
or elsewhere) specifically loads .la files and not .so files.
Neil made this change a long time ago, and I remember commenting
on it long after the fact (his original proposal for this change
was hidden in one of his 10-page emails).  Part of me thinks we
should make it look for .la, and if that fails fall back to .so

This all still boils down to the fact that gnucash still doesn't have
a clear distinction between "shared library" and "loadable module".

-derek

Christian Stimming <stimming at tuhh.de> writes:

> Dear developers,
>
> the SuSE people are going to package gnucash2 into their next release
> SuSE Linux 10.2 (the current 10.1 was released just this week). See
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=104677 for some of the help
> they needed to get this going. But they raised an interesting question:
>
>> The packages can have some devel splitting problems - for standard packages, we
>> package .so and .la files as part of -devel subpackage, not installed by
>> default.
>> But some parts of gnucash need .so for loading and other parts use ltdl and
>> la. I have tried to catch all these issues, but maybe I failed.
>
> I thought of one solution to get rid of any such problems, not only for
> SuSE/rpm but any package manager (but my idea was bogus, see below). We
> could add an install-exec-hook rule that removes the *.la files in those
> Makefile.am's where we know by design that the *.la files are not
> needed. Unfortunately I'm not too sure where *.la is still needed, but
> if it is needed only for the "-module" libraries (libgncmod-foo), then
> e.g. src/core-utils doesn't need the *.la files. ...
>
> However, after checking the code, it occurred to me that the *.la files
> are also used during "make uninstall" to determine the file names with
> the correct version numbers to be removed. (Because on "make uninstall"
> libtool is invoked again, but only with the *.la file as argument, so it
> uses that file to determine the other filenames.) This means if the *.la
> is removed during normal "make install" (by an install-exec-hook), then
> "make uninstall" will be broken, which among others breaks "make
> distcheck". Okay. Seems the packagers have to live with this issue. If
> they want to separate the *.la files from the base package, we can't
> help here. Thanks for listening :-)
>
> Christian
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
>

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available