[Python-Dev] Please give this patch for building bsddb a try
Martin v. Loewis
24 Jun 2002 22:05:13 +0200
email@example.com (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
> MvL> If then the target directory recorded with -R happens to be
> MvL> on an unavailable NFS server at run-time (on a completely
> MvL> different network), you cannot import the library module
> MvL> anymore, which would otherwise work perfectly fine.
> Do people still use NFS servers to share programs? I thought big
> cheap disks and RPMs did away with all that. :)
This was on Solaris, so no RPMs.
> I believe that -R/-rpath adds directories to runtime search paths so
> if the NFS directory was unmounted, ld.so should still be able to
> locate the shared library through fallback means. That may fail too,
> but oh well.
Yes, but the startup time for the program increases dramatically - it
has to wait for the dead NFS server to timeout.
> One issue on Solaris may be that -- according to the GNU ld docs --
> the runtime search path will be built from the -L options which we're
> already passing, /unless/ -rpath is given, and this seems to be added
Where do the docs say that? I don't think this is the case, or ever
> to help with NFS mounted directories on the -L specified path. But
> since I'm proposing that the -rpath directory be the same as the -L
> path, I don't think it will make matters worse.
Indeed, it wouldn't.
> Hmm. Was the problem that the NFS server was unresponsive, or that
> the directory was unmounted, but still searched? If the former, then
> maybe you do have a problem.
Yes, that was the problem. Even with soft mounting, it will still take
time to timeout.
> We've made it so easy to build a batteries-included Python that I
> think it would be unfortunately not to do better just because we fear
> that things /might/ go wrong in some strange environments.
That is a reasonable argument, and I've been giving similar arguments
in other cases, too, so I guess I should just stop complaining.
> Here's a compromise. If LD_RUN_PATH is set at all (regardless of
> value), don't add -R/--rpath. Or add a --without-rpath switch to
I guess we don't need to compromise, and approach is *very* cryptic,
so I'd rather avoid it.
It looks like the current bsddb module is going to go away, anyway, so
there is no need to tweak the current configuration that much. I don't
know what the bsddb3 build procedure is, but any approach you come up
with now probably needs to be redone after pybsddb3 integration.