Re: [gentoo-alt] interix preserve-libs

[Markus Duft]

On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:01 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 14:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 21-07-2009 13:33:26 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > i spent another few hours on getting this right. attached is a (way
> > > smaller) new version of the patch, making both interix and winnt work.
> > > the patch is written as such, that other platforms may be easily added
> > > in the future (i think of hppa-hpux and aix - i talked to haubi, and the
> > > format of the NEEDED.PFX.1 files is ok - if not, we can still
> > > change :)).
> >
> > I actually don't understand why you took .PFX this time.  It seems this
> > stands for Prefix, as the python code is doing now too.  I don't really
> > understand what Prefix is different from ELF in this case.  It works
> > fine on Linux and Solaris ELF in Prefix.  So what was the idea behind
> > PFX?  I think ITX was better.  If it's really because you hate to waste
> > space in the python code on inventing new format names, you might better
> > call it ELFLIKE or something.  However, the MACHO case won't ever fit in
> > it, and we decided to split it off, because that also will make other
> > tools that read/use it fail because of file not found, instead of not
> > understanding the file format, or its contents.

hmm... i must have done something wrong while renaming things in the
patch - still investigating - so please don't commit anything :)

>
> the idea behind PFX was to gather together all platforms that use a
> similar format, and make implementing preserve-libs for thos platforms
> as easy as writing another scanbin_* function in scanbin-prefix. after
> thinking a little more of it, and discussing with haubi, i think you're
> right. i renamed scanbin-prefix to scanpecoff and the NEEDED file to
> NEEDED.PECOFF.1. this way we keep up the correct naming for the file
> format, and even have a binary that follows the naming on other
> platforms (although it's usage is a little different, but only portage
> should care :)).
>
> Another approach would have been to call the NEEDED file NEEDED.ELF.2
> too, as both interix and windows try to mimic ELF, and thus have the
> same information stored on disk - this way external tools (as you
> mentioned) wouldn't even need to know that it's interix/winnt, it would
> just work - however this would be a plain lie, which i don't like that
> much.
>
> What i was talking about regarding the LinkageMapMacho, was to make the
> class inherit from LinkageMap, and remove functions that are the exact
> same in both (and thus inherit them from LinkageMap - it's the same
> code). i did that for (now) LinkageMapPeCoff, which works fine -
> LinkageMapPeCoff is now only a few lines long.
>
> >
> > So please consider this.  What's the benefit of squeezing them all into
> > one file/format?  Only if you're absolutely sure this is completely
> > compatible, and also for the future, without harming others, then it
> > could be done.  But on the other hand, giving each its own file name
> > takes not much more, especially if they share the implementation, but
> > allows easy upgrade/bump/migration if ever they /need/ to be
> > fixed/changed/etc.
>
> the plan was to reduce the amount of work needed to introduce
> preserve-libs to a new platform which is ELF-like and thus has the same
> linkage information in the NEEDED file. but i guess we're running out of
> such platforms anyway :)
>
> Cheers, Markus
>
> >
> >
> >