Re: [TUHS] Deleted lib1 and lib2 in v6, recoverable?

[Rudi Blom <rudi.j.blom@gmail.com>]

>Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 14:24:55 -0500
>From: Paul Winalski <paul.winalski@gmail.com>
>To: Norman Wilson <norman@oclsc.org>
>Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] Deleted lib1 and lib2 in v6, recoverable?
>Message-ID:
>        <CABH=_VTqZzNXPNecFCVZeqfMTnoJiWHbXZz->BriRGtxBY0J10Q@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>On 12/30/18, Norman Wilson <norman@oclsc.org> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Nowadays ranlib is no longer a separate program: ar
>> recognizes object files and maintains an index if any are
>> present.  I never especially liked that; ar is in.
>> principle a general tool so why should it have a special
>> case for one type of file?  But in practice I don't know
>> anyone who uses ar for anything except libraries any more
>> (everyone uses tar for the general case, since .it does a.
>> better job).
>
>As you say, nobody these days uses ar for anything except object
>module libraries.  And just about anything you do that modifies an ar
>library will require re-running ranlib afterwards.  So as a
>convenience and as a way to avoid cockpit errors, it makes sense to
>merge the ranlib function into ar.  MacOS still uses an independent
>ranlib, and it's a pain in the butt to have to remember to run ranlib
>after each time you modify an archive.
>
Maybe not on some of the older, more (resource) restricted systems,
but now normally wouldn't modifying an archive be part of
definitions/rules in a makefile and as such wouldn't the makefile
include using ranlib if an archive was modified ?

uncle rubl