Re: libjava "make install" is broken again

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>OTOH, it means it's not that simple to get rid of the run-time library
>dependencies.  We have to not only convert the dependence libraries to
>convenience archives, but also remove the dependencies from the libgcj
>specs.
>

Actually thats easy, the libgcj.spec is quite trivially generated by the 
libjava configure.

>>> It is certainly wrong for gcj to dynamically link binaries directly
>>> against libgcjgc - which is what is done currently.
>>
>
>This is only wrong if you assume the dynamic linker could resolve
>dependencies of shared libraries by itself.  This is only the case on
>a few platforms that support shared libraries.  Others will report
>missing symbols at link time unless you explicitly specify dependent
>libraries when linking the main program 
>

Its wrong because those libraries are just implementation details of 
libjava. If the implementation were to later change then the binaries 
could have dependencies to libraries which no longer exist, etc. 
Platforms where libraries can't have their own dependencies are 
obviously unfortunate - more reason to use convenience libraries and 
just have everything in libgcj.

regards

Bryce.