New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
apparently no XS modules build when linking statically #12382
Comments
From perl@plan9.deCreated by perl@plan9.deAs the subject says, when perl is cofnigured with static linking, I have yet to find an XS module As a simple example, Params::Validate (which does not supply a Makefile.PL). # $PERL Build.PL (many missing symbols omitted) error building blib/arch/auto/Params/Validate/XS/XS.none from lib/Params/Validate/XS.o at /tmp/testperl/perl/lib/ExtUtils/CBuilder/Base.pm line 241. Modules that use a traditional Makefile.PL are not affected (even when Checking if your kit is complete... (many lines omitted) cat /tmp/testperl/perl/lib/auto/threads/extralibs.ld >> blib/arch/auto/JSON/XS/extralibs.all There also seems to be no easy way to build a new perl binary to install It seems static linking is just one of many ways to break Module::Build's I think Module::Build should be able to build XS extensions just like Perl Info
|
From @LeontOn Thu Sep 06 04:12:13 2012, perl@plan9.de wrote:
First of all, you filed this bugreport at the wrong place. The upstream Secondly, patches welcome. Leon |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @nwc10On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:51:20AM -0700, Leon Timmermans via RT wrote:
And frustratingly we don't (yet) have the infrastructure merged so that
Because it's unlikely to happen otherwise? I'm getting the impression from https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Dist/Display.html?Status=Active&Name=Module-Build that Module::Build has no active developers currently. Which is a shame. Nicholas Clark |
From schmorp@schmorp.deOn Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:51:20AM -0700, Leon Timmermans via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
Hmm, perlbug said bugs against core modules should be reported via it - is
Thanks for pointing me towards this. Hmm, that bug seems to be about building perl (although it's not entirely However, judging from the bug date, it seems Module::Build is essentially
Thats what you say, but my actual experience with these kind of patches Besides, one would assume that the maintainer of Module::Build would I am not saying that bugfixes don't get accepted eventually, but the path I will be happy to be of any other assistance, of course, such as making -- |
From schmorp@schmorp.deOn Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:59:29AM -0700, Nicholas Clark via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
Indeed, it is a shame - many people fell for the promises of Module::Build, Unfortunately, for the people actually building the modules, Module::Build If it's indeed unmaintained (it looks like it is), then maybe it should be -- |
From @LeontOn Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> wrote:
Incidentally ExtUtils::MakeMaker has a longer list of open issues than
Well, I'm currently the sucker who accepts and releases patches, and
I suspect you have more recent experience with static perls than Leon |
From @LeontOn Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> wrote:
Module::Build was a really good idea, but poorly implemented. My long Leon |
From schmorp@schmorp.deOn Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:57:00PM +0200, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, that would indeed mean that length of open bugs is no good Of course, there is also the design problem with Module::Build - it This means that Module::Build must be held to a higher standard than
I'm not asking you to fix my bugs btw. (and this is not my bug, a lot of Reporting bugs also fulfills a documentation role for others, so an open
Again, this is not about static perls, but static building of The problem I reported is that Module::Build can't build XS modules _at
Building perl is not hard at all, as all the support infrastructure for The problem is really that Module::Build can't even build the module itself. That's why I said that the bug is not quite the same. The rt bug is about a -- |
From schmorp@schmorp.deOn Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:00:03PM +0200, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:
If I might weigh in a bit from the user side of things - please make On the other hand, the ability to build a new perl binary is not something -- |
From @LeontOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> wrote:
True. I wasn't saying Module::Build is in a better state than
I know :-(. Actually, I think the real problem is mostly in
I see, I didn't know that. Leon |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#114774 (status was 'open')
Searchable as RT114774$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: