• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries


  • Subject: Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
  • From: Bill Northcott <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 17:34:26 +1100

On 01/01/2006, at 3:55 PM, Steve Checkoway wrote:

Ensuring that the version of the library you intended can be a good thing without a doubt; however, what happens when a newer version of a library is released and the install name of a particular library includes the full version?


$ otool -D /usr/lib/libssl.dylib
/usr/lib/libssl.dylib:
/usr/lib/libssl.0.9.7.dylib

What happens when libcssl.0.9.8 is installed by Apple on my computer? I will have to recompile everything against the new version. Perhaps this isn't a fundamental flaw of install names but if Apple has the wrong install names (or is it intended that everyone's software break if it links with libssl and new version is included in a future software update?) how are we to deal with that?

I don't know what is your computer, but on mine /usr/lib/libssl.dylib is a symlink to /usr/lib/libssl.0.9.7.dylib. Since ld resolves the symlinks, it will the latter which is in the link path. There is also a /usr/lib/libssl.0.9.dylib. I have never known Apple to install a differently numbered version and drop the old file. That is why 0.9 version is still there. This is not the neatest, but that is price of trying to be compatible with Linux.

If the user is changing the runtime library search paths then presumably they know what they are doing and can live with the consequences if it doesn't work out quite as well as planned. Just having my software be completely dependent on a bug fix version of a library that is _very_ likely to change (http://www.openssl.org/ source/ 0.9.8a looks like the latest to me) seems like a poor choice to me.

That why Apple don't install using bug fix names. If they want to fix a bug they can leave the file name the same and update the internal version number.


Cheers
Bill
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Bill Northcott <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Steve Checkoway <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Bill Northcott <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Steve Checkoway <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Bill Northcott <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Steve Checkoway <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Bill Northcott <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Bill Northcott <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries (From: Steve Checkoway <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
  • Previous by thread: Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
  • Next by thread: Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread