ANNOUNCE: Xffm release

[Marcel Pol]

Edscott Wilson Garcia wrote:

>El mié, 08-06-2005 a las 16:41 +0200, Marcel Pol escribió:
>  
>
>>Edscott Wilson Garcia wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Xffm-4.3.2.1 is now released. 
>>>      
>>>
>>I have an issue with the plugins. They are called plugins, and according
>>to the lib.la files xffm uses dlopen for them. I'd think that if they
>>are plugins, they don't need a SONAME, and xffm could just dlopen the
>>lib.so file.
>>Afaik a SONAME is only used for real libraries.
>>    
>>
>
>On your mentioning this point, I've noticed that both panel plugins and
>most mcs-plugins are creating .a versions of the plugins. AFAIK,
>useless. Plugins are always loaded dynamically and never linked
>statically.
>

Yes. Downstream packagers have the habit of deleting them most of the
time :-)

> Which brings me to your question. Plugins are nothing more
>than dynamic libraries. The only difference with *real* libraries is
>that the main program is not linked with the plugin-library. Thus, the
>main program has no idea what symbols exist in the library and must use
>the g_module functions to see what is available.
>
>The lib.la files you mention are probably useless for plugins. This is
>not the case for dual function plugin/libraries. The stuff in
>xffm/modules are such, because when you configure with debug enabled,
>the modules will be linked as dynamic libraries. Otherwise they will be
>loaded as plugins. This is just to make g_module debugging a bit
>easier.  
>
>  
>
>>What happens is something different though. When xffm is run without the
>>lib.so files installed it gives this error:
>>
>>$ xffm
>>** (xffm:23469): WARNING **: Cannot connect to session manager
>>** (xffm:23469): WARNING **: g_module_open(/usr/lib/libxffm_icons.so) ==
>>NULL
>>** (xffm:23469): WARNING **: Module cannot be opened! Check if correctly
>>installed...
>>** (xffm:23469): WARNING **: Show stopper: cannot get module info for
>>xffm_icons
>>xffm: signal 11 received. Cleaning up before exiting
>>xffm: logfile = /home/marcel/.cache/xfce4/xffm/xffm_error.log
>>xffm: dumping core at= /home/marcel/.cache/xfce4/xffm
>>Aborted
>>$
>>    
>>
>
>The modules which are installed in $prefix/lib are necessary for xffm. 
>The one in particular you mention, libxffm_icons.so, is always loaded on
>startup so I think that will just be statically linked in future
>versions of xffm.
>
>  
>
You mean that /usr/bin/xffm will have them statically linked?

>The plugins which you can delete (xffm >= 4.3.1) and which will only
>reduce functions of xffm are located in $prefix/lib/xfce4/xffm-plugins.
>You can also disable their creation at configure step. These are .so
>files. Most probably you can remove the .la files at
>$prefix/lib/xfce4/xffm-plugins with no ill-effect (I'm just guessing).
>
>  
>
>>I'm no programmer, so I don't know if g_module_open is being used for
>>plugins or libraries, but it is trying to open a lib.so file, which is
>>or a plugin, or it is a development library. That confuses me a bit,
>>what is it? If it would be a real plugin, xffm shouldn't break on it not
>>being present. If it's a library, it should open the versioned lib.so.2.
>>So my question is, should I treat these files as plugins or libraries?
>>    
>>
>
>Those that are installed in $prefix/lib should be treated as libraries
>(although xffm may choose to load them with g_module instead of dynamic
>linker). Those installed in $prefix/lib/xfce4/xffm-plugins should be
>treated as plugins (xffm will not link dynamically to them in foreseable
>future). 
>
>  
>
>>For reference, I listed the SONAME's below:
>>$ objdump -x libxffm_actions.so libxffm_basic.so \
>>libxffm_calls.so libxffm_cpy.so libxffm_primary.so \
>>libxffm_secondary.so libxffm_tubo.so |grep SO
>>  SONAME      libxffm_actions.so.2
>>  SONAME      libxffm_basic.so.2
>>  SONAME      libxffm_calls.so.2
>>  SONAME      libxffm_cpy.so.2
>>  SONAME      libxffm_primary.so.2
>>  SONAME      libxffm_secondary.so.2
>>  SONAME      libxffm_tubo.so.2
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Current work in branch 4.3.2.4 is to sort out these libraries. Of the
>ones mentioned above,  libxffm_basic, libxffm_calls, libxffm_cpy will
>dissappear. 
>  
>

Ok, your answer makes it rather clear to me. Just one question; if the
libraries are libraries, shouldn't xffm open them with the full name,
like libxffm_actions.so.2 instead of libxffm_actions.so?


Btw, did you send html mail? My mozilla-thunderbird really makes a mess
of it. To the point that I would consider switching mail clients.