Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

[Peter O'G. <pe...@po...>]

On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 09:25 -0400, David Reiser wrote:
> This isn't necessarily a fink question, but it might get to be...
>=20
> A change was made in gnucash 1.9.7 where the program looks to load =20
> a .so module, but the compiler/linker only created .dylib files. The =20
> object in question is a Mach bundle. Creating a symlink  x.so -> =20
> x.dylib does allow everything to work, but it seems like an ugly fix. =20
> Where should I be looking to find documentation on the proper =20
> approach to either create a .so file in the first place, or let the =20
> program look for .dylib files in the case of a Darwin system?
>=20
> Their one mac developer has moved on to other projects, and I'm =20
> trying to keep the mac friendly ball rolling with limited knowledge =20
> on my part.

Neil moved on?

Gnucash has a whole bunch of libraries that are also loadable modules
and is one of the reasons that dlcompat got written all those years ago.
Gnucash-1.8 and 1.9 may differ in this regard though, I do not know.

1.8 always uses libltdl or guile to load modules, and guile always uses
it's own libltdl, libltdl has a hard-coded-at-compile-time idea of what
the loadable module extension is, and depending on the libtool version,
that will either be .so or .dylib on darwin. This should not matter if
the .la files are kept around though, as the .la file has the dlopenable
name in it.

gnucash-1.9 probably still uses libltdl to open modules, doesn't it?

Peter