[csw-maintainers] Bugreport on alternatives with NFS-shared /opt/csw

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi James,

Am 17.03.2010 um 19:12 schrieb James Lee:
> On 17/03/10, 17:00:07, Philip Brown wrote regarding Re:
> [csw-maintainers] Bugreport on alternatives with NFS-shared /opt/csw:
>
>>> could someone who advocates shared NFS please suggest something on  
>>> the
>>> user of alternatives in such an environment?
>>>  <http://www.opencsw.org/bugtrack/view.php?id=4352>
>>>
>
>> I'd like to, but I dont fully understand what "alternatives" is  
>> doing.
>> you sort of half-explain it, in the ticket.
>
> Would neon would be better served by an auxiliary flag (see ld(1)).
> Eg:
>
> Compiled neon (minimal) with:
>    cc -G -o libneon.so.0.29.3 -Wl,-f,/opt/csw/lib/libneon-full.so ...
> each lib needs linking with its own flag.
> Compile libneon-full.so as normal.
> Package both to install both in /opt/csw/lib
> Make CSWneon the default depend choice.
> Users get CSWneon on install via depends but can add CSWneonfull
> manually.

I just read through
   <http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-1984/chapter4-1?l=de&a=view&q=auxiliary 
 >
and it sounds indeed pretty much of what is needed here. In the case
of curl and neon it should work pretty well as there is only one
library produced. In the general case this may be tedious as it requires
specific options per library.

> This has the effect that when anything looks for libneon.so it will
> get libneon-full.so if it exists otherwise just it gets libneon.so
>
> I don't see neon full as an alternative, if you've got it use it.
> Neon full is surely an extension, alternatives are when there is a
> choice between two files that are both installed.  (Correct me if
> I've misunderstood neon full.)

The only mechanism used here from alternatives is the automatic  
precedence
of higher prioritized files, in this case the more-featurefull library.

I'll see how I can get this integrated.


Best regards

   -- Dago