[fpc-pascal] Re: linux: should we hard-code versioned or unversioned shared libraries in our apps?

Marco van de Voort marcov at stack.nl
Thu Aug 16 05:31:01 CEST 2012

In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> I'm sure I can add that, and I'm sure it will work for my Firebird
> connections, but other libraries I use don't have such functionality.
> I'm trying to get to the bottom of....
>   * Why must developers jump through hoops to get there DB apps to work

It's not a FPC problem, it is a linux problem that apps are not
crossdistribution distributable.  Creating a lot of drama if you see a
minor discrepancy here 6 months after release won't benefit anyone.

Just like we had a similar drama discussions about adding fbembedded 9
months ago, we'll just rehash this charade in 9 months for some other
library where a new version came out or where naming changed.

>   * Why did FPC decide to use unversioned shared libraries under linux when
>      they (fpc developers) clearly know than those -devel packages are
> not installed
>      as standard - thus making deployment of FPC+DB apps unnecessary complex.
Because it is the _only_ fixed point in this whole mess. This sounds all
very smart now, but once .2 will start changing you can explain people how
to fix everything so that designtime components keep working. (and
installing -dev won't help, manual intervention must be done)

> Yes it's great that the Firebird dynamic linking unit supports passing
> in aditional library names, but why not simply use the correct name as
> standard. 
> Other apps that talk to Firebird link to libfbclient.so.2

Which apps, do they dlload at all?

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list