Tiny Core Linux

Tiny Core Extensions => TCE Talk => Topic started by: Kingdomcome on October 03, 2009, 09:04:48 AM

Title: gcc libs
Post by: Kingdomcome on October 03, 2009, 09:04:48 AM

Ive noticed there are a few extensions that require one or more of gcc's shared libs to run, including one that I maintain. Currently, I and the others (I believe) are simply copying the libs into the extension during creation which causes extension sizes to increase slightly and the same files getting installed multiple times possibly.  I would like to propose that the shared libs in the gcc extension to be split off so that they could become a dependency of these extensions.

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: Juanito on October 03, 2009, 09:40:06 AM

There's libgomp, libssp, libmudflapth and libmudflap - which ones did you have in mind?

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: curaga on October 03, 2009, 10:25:52 AM

Why not all of them? All can be used by apps, not just gcc.

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: bmarkus on October 03, 2009, 10:30:11 AM

libgomp.so is required by ImageMagick and GraphicsMagick. Currently inkscape is listed as a dependency for these just to have libgomp.so

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: Jason W on October 03, 2009, 11:01:30 AM

Since the combined size of the gcc shared libs in /usr/local/lib add to only 225kb, my vote would be to have them in a gcc-libs extension to be used by apps during runtime and to be a dep of course of gcc.

That way when gcc is updated, we don't have to hunt down each extension that contains gcc lib files and update the libs in them when gcc is updated.  If those files are left in the extensions after the next gcc update, they would cause conflict with the newer gcc.  The size increase of extensions packing gcc libs in them is less of a concern than the conflict that would later occur after gcc update, but the less size would be a bonus. 

This would make an easier transition whenever the toolchain is updated.

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: bmarkus on October 03, 2009, 11:19:11 AM

For me sounds OK.

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: curaga on October 03, 2009, 01:24:49 PM

I do wonder if they are as version-sensitive as libstdc++. Anyway, even in that case, separation makes things easier.

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: Kingdomcome on October 03, 2009, 06:38:27 PM

It seems like the decision has already been made to split alll 3 shared libs out.  I agree with that totally.  Ive personally notices libssp being in a couple extensions and also read the libgomp discussion on the forum. So it just made sense to me to suggest this.  Thanks for the quick replies and action.

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: Juanito on October 04, 2009, 01:31:00 AM

gcc.tcz and gcc_libs.tczl posted

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: bmarkus on October 04, 2009, 03:25:48 AM

gcc_libs.tczl must be added to compiletc dependency list.

BTW I think compiletc.tcz must be renamed to  compiletc.tczl

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: Juanito on October 04, 2009, 05:47:18 AM

compiletc.tcz.dep modified.

I don't think the name needs to be changed to tczl, the tczl on the individual packages would invoke ldconfig, no?

Title: Re: gcc libs
Post by: bmarkus on October 04, 2009, 06:24:47 AM

Quote from: Juanito on October 04, 2009, 05:47:18 AM

I don't think the name needs to be changed to tczl, the tczl on the individual packages would invoke ldconfig, no?

Good question, I do not know. However if the result of installing it is installation of libraries it is more logical to name .tczl