From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25320 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 08:07:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 08:07:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 14462 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2002 08:07:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17037 Received: (qmail 14448 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 08:07:15 -0000 From: Borsenkow Andrej To: "'Oliver Kiddle'" , "'Zsh hackers list'" Subject: RE: 4.0.5 ? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:07:05 +0400 Message-ID: <001d01c1ec30$315bf520$1fc1f2a3@mow.siemens.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <20020424085439.GA22700@logica.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal > > > > IMHO there can be no 4.2 unless module dependency problem is fixed > > (dynamic modules that depend on other dynamic modules). > > From the perspective that the current dev branch is almost as stable > as 4.0 it would make some sense to declare a 4.2 to allow the users > to benefit from those 229 changes. I am not sure if they necessarily benefit from them. I did not analyze every article but at least some changes are related to code rearranging; I guess most real bug fixes and new completion functions did go into 4.0. > If we hold out for big changes, > they may not happen for a while and then they'll take a while to > stabilise. I don't think the long 3.0 - 4.0 gap was ideal. > Then please put current state of affairs into BUGS. It is bug after all. > > To remind - it is impossible to dlopen() a shared object that has > > unresolved data objects even on Linux, that currently rules out any > > solution that encodes dependencies in binary itself. > > Would it work on platforms like Linux to link modules against those > they depend. Using external files would be ugly but I'd mind less if > they were only needed on some platforms. > I am not sure what do you mean. Several modules in one shared object? This requires even more changes. I see that nobody (me including) is happy with extra files and nobody is going to undertake major rewrite :-) I do not have much spare time currently, but I still hope to find some automatic way to replace all variables with functions. -andrej