On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:23 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:

> 
> On 02/10/2011 10:11 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>> 
>>> Right now I've checked in the changes to use the new shared library
>>> model called "aix-soname" I've proposed recently along bug#213277 [1].
>> 
>> Can you tell us which version you picked?  At one point you had about
>> five ideas you were weighing.
> 
> Ohw sorry, sure: The one I've posted at libtool mailing list[1][2] as well as
> in the IBM AIX Developers forum[3], and recently to the binutils mailing list[4].
> While the big agreement on that variant is still not there - maybe because of
> less interest (there's not much response anywhere), I've implemented that in
> Prefix now for both prove-of-concept as well as to identify possible problems.
> 
> How I prefer doing "shared libraries" with "soname" on AIX now is:
> 
> *) Create the shared object "shr.o" (using '-G' linker flag).
> *) Set the LOADONLY flag for "shr.o" (using 'strip -e').
> *) Create the Import File "shr.imp", containing
>   - this header line, being the "soname" emulation:
>       #! libNAME.so.1(shr.o)
>   - another header line telling the bits used:
>       # 32
>     or
>       # 64
>   - the list of symbols exported.
> *) Create the archive library "libNAME.so.1.2.3" from both
>   "shr.imp" and "shr.o".
> *) Create the symlinks as usual:
>   libNAME.so.1 -> libNAME.so.1.2.3
>   libNAME.so -> libNAME.so.1.2.3
> *) Create the static library archive "libNAME.a" from static objects.

Do you recall the advantage of having a import file plus the shared
object in the archive?  What problem does that solve that having
just the shared object creates?

Perry