[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Bug#502232: Bug#502232: Bug#502232: Bug#502232: libopenmpi-dev: No static libraries in the package

[Manuel Prinz]

Hi Sylvestre,

thanks for taking care of this! But I still have some doubts.

Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 00:43 +0200 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
> Here is the full comment from the Makefile:
> 
> # This library is linked against various MCA components because all
> # shared-memory based components (e.g., mpool, ptl, etc.)  need to
> # share some common code and data.  There's two cases:
> #
> # 1. libmca_common_sm.la is a shared library.  By linking that shared
> # library to all components that need it, the OS linker will
> # automatically load it into the process as necessary, and there will
> # only be one copy (i.e., all the components will share *one* copy of
> # the code and data).
> #
> # 2. libmca_common_sm.la is a static library.  In this case, it will
> # be rolled up into the top-level libmpi.la.  It will also be rolled
> # into each component, but then the component will also be rolled up
> # into the upper-level libmpi.la.  Linkers universally know how to
> # "figure this out" so that we end up with only one copy of the code
> # and data.
> #
> # Note that building this common component statically and linking
> # against other dynamic components is *not* supported!
> 
> 
> I commited a solution in our SVN, I just remove this library from the
> libopenmi1 package and import *.a & *.la.

I do not see how that is a solution, since it seems like we're now
shipping just static libraries in the MCA components, or at least
libmca_common_sm. I'd pretty much like to avoid that but am currently
also confused a little about the issue. Can you acknowledge that we go
for solution #2 with the current fix? Why can't static and shared
co-exist for the MCA stuff?

Also, in my understanding, the MCA components are seperate and not
linked into an application at all, so I do not see the point in making
them static. I may be wrong here.

> As it is said in the Makefile, it will work but we are duplicating this
> code in each component.
> However, /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmca_common_sm.so.0.0.0 is only 6k... 
> We could go this way.

Duplicating the code may have security implications and we should
document the fact that we have duplicate code in static libraries
properly, somewhere.

> Any objections ? If not, I will upload it tomorrow.

I'd be OK with it but liked to understand the issue since I have the
feeling that the solution will cause trouble -- but it's nothing more
than a feeling.

Also, we are under freeze and a new upload today is not in any way
better than a new upload next week. There are other open issues we could
fix in one upload. I would not mind doing a seperate upload, however.
That's up to you.

Confused regards,
Manuel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-openmpi-maintainers/attachments/20081015/43447b0a/attachment-0003.pgp