libtool suck :(

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

libtool suck :(

Tobias Pape
 
Wanted to produce a new 'fat' SqueakSSL binary that's guaranteed to run on both
CentOS-like and Debian-like. But no, libtool messes up my linker command line.
A bug known since 2006[1]. So, no new SqueakSSL with host name verification for you today…

Now I'm sad and go to bed.
        -t



[1]: really: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347650
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libtool suck :(

Holger Freyther
 

> On 7. Jul 2017, at 01:13, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Wanted to produce a new 'fat' SqueakSSL binary that's guaranteed to run on both
> CentOS-like and Debian-like. But no, libtool messes up my linker command line.
> A bug known since 2006[1]. So, no new SqueakSSL with host name verification for you today…

Did you try make configure in the unix directory to generate a newer configure/libtool?

holger

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libtool suck :(

Tobias Pape
 

> On 07.07.2017, at 01:14, Holger Freyther <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 7. Jul 2017, at 01:13, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wanted to produce a new 'fat' SqueakSSL binary that's guaranteed to run on both
>> CentOS-like and Debian-like. But no, libtool messes up my linker command line.
>> A bug known since 2006[1]. So, no new SqueakSSL with host name verification for you today…
>
> Did you try make configure in the unix directory to generate a newer configure/

yes, no change.

>
> holger
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libtool suck :(

Eliot Miranda-2
 
Hi Tobias,

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:


> On 07.07.2017, at 01:14, Holger Freyther <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 7. Jul 2017, at 01:13, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wanted to produce a new 'fat' SqueakSSL binary that's guaranteed to run on both
>> CentOS-like and Debian-like. But no, libtool messes up my linker command line.
>> A bug known since 2006[1]. So, no new SqueakSSL with host name verification for you today…
>
> Did you try make configure in the unix directory to generate a newer configure/

yes, no change.

I'd really like to see the linux builds take the same approach as the Mac OS X and WIN32/WIN64 builds, just using makefiles and relegating the configure step to create a config.h defining the platform's facilities.  Then you ow;don't be dependent on libel.  Do you have any energy to take this approach?  It would take a few days, but it would be great to say goodbye to the current unix/linux build system.

_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libtool suck :(

Holger Freyther
 

> On 7. Jul 2017, at 18:31, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> I'd really like to see the linux builds take the same approach as the Mac OS X and WIN32/WIN64 builds, just using makefiles and relegating the configure step to create a config.h defining the platform's facilities.  Then you ow;don't be dependent on libel.  Do you have any energy to take this approach?  It would take a few days, but it would be great to say goodbye to the current unix/linux build system.

please consider what it takes to get a source package into a Linux distribution. E.g. downloading sources at build time is not allowed for most of them (maybe even actively forbidden), and bundling of libraries is generally discouraged. As far as I remember these were two of the attributes when trying to build the macOS VM during one of my last flights. ;)

holger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libtool suck :(

Tobias Pape
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
 

> On 07.07.2017, at 18:31, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> > On 07.07.2017, at 01:14, Holger Freyther <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 7. Jul 2017, at 01:13, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Wanted to produce a new 'fat' SqueakSSL binary that's guaranteed to run on both
> >> CentOS-like and Debian-like. But no, libtool messes up my linker command line.
> >> A bug known since 2006[1]. So, no new SqueakSSL with host name verification for you today…
> >
> > Did you try make configure in the unix directory to generate a newer configure/
>
> yes, no change.
>
> I'd really like to see the linux builds take the same approach as the Mac OS X and WIN32/WIN64 builds, just using makefiles and relegating the configure step to create a config.h defining the platform's facilities.  Then you ow;don't be dependent on libel.  Do you have any energy to take this approach?  It would take a few days, but it would be great to say goodbye to the current unix/linux build system.

I understand this position. So, we both don't like the current situation, but we have still different opinions on a good solution. I don't have the energy to dive into a solution wouldn't support fullheartedly. I hope you understand, no intent to upset anyone.
Besides that, building SqueakSSL static and with special link options would only be necessary for Non-Distro-specific Builds, like the ones we have now.
Debian/CentOS-integrated builds (wich we really should commence…) should never statically link if possible…

Best regards
        -Tobias



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libtool suck :(

Eliot Miranda-2
In reply to this post by Holger Freyther
 
Hi Holger,

> On Jul 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Holger Freyther <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 7. Jul 2017, at 18:31, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'd really like to see the linux builds take the same approach as the Mac OS X and WIN32/WIN64 builds, just using makefiles and relegating the configure step to create a config.h defining the platform's facilities.  Then you ow;don't be dependent on libel.  Do you have any energy to take this approach?  It would take a few days, but it would be great to say goodbye to the current unix/linux build system.
>
> please consider what it takes to get a source package into a Linux distribution. E.g. downloading sources at build time is not allowed for most of them (maybe even actively forbidden), and bundling of libraries is generally discouraged. As far as I remember these were two of the attributes when trying to build the macOS VM during one of my last flights. ;)

While the Pharo build (which is not mine to define) does download source for support libraries (cairo etc), Squeak and newspeak builds do not.

But how one builds a complex system without either building or bundling libraries I don't know.

In any case this is orthogonal to rewriting the build system to use static makefiles instead of the complex multi-staged generation in platforms/unix/conf.  I want the build system in unix to be simpler and more maintainable.  That shouldn't change the source of the build at all.

>
> holger
Loading...