RE: R3.14.2

["Jeff Hill" <johill@lanl.gov>]

Nevertheless perhaps some of the issues that I raised could be
discussed. 

In summary:

1) Should steps be taken so that the shareable libraries from
different major releases of EPICS are not interchangeable? On
Windows I think that this requires that they have different names
(including the major release number).

2) We should probably be thinking about the proper structure for
binary installs of EPICS base with the goal being that we can mix
and match binary installs of various different extension and
application components from different laboratories. On windows
this would be an install script. Ken has an install script for
both MEDM and EPICS Base, but we should probably be looking at
how various components of epics from extensions and elsewhere can
all be integrated together from independent binary installs. On
Linux this would be Redhat Package Manger (RPM) installs. I am
certainly no expert on such things, but I am wondering if the
"application must be relinked to use an EPICS base installed in a
different location" model is fully consistent with binary
installs. Perhaps someone should look at how these issues are
typically dealt with when integrating many different RPMs on
Linux systems.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:anj@aps.anl.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:42 AM
> To: Jeff Hill
> Cc: 'Anderson, Janet B.'; evans@aps.anl.gov; 'Marty Kraimer';
> 'Eric Norum'; 'Ralph Lange'; Core-Talk@aps.anl.gov; Chris
> Timossi
> Subject: Re: R3.14.2
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> I think you read more into my message than I intended, which
> was written
> from relative ignorance of how EPICS IOCs are built and used on
> Windows.
> 
> My original aim was to resolve the issues that we have at the
> moment when
> building IOCs for Linux (which defaults to
> SHARED_LIBRARIES=YES).  I don't
> think it's acceptable to have to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> variable before
> running binaries, especially when there's a way to build the
> path to the
> necessary shared libraries (which are not necessarily all in
> base - the
> sequencer also uses a couple of libraries at runtime) into the
> binary in
> the first place.  At present that can be done manually on Linux
> with
> settings in one or more config files, but it's silly for these
> to have to
> be made manually when they can easily be automated, which is
> what I've
> been working on.  As long as we can do that on Linux and
> Solaris (and HP
> if Ralph and the other HP-ers want it) I don't really care that
> it can't
> be done on Windows, which seems to be the case.
> 
> I don't intend to make any changes to the win32 configuration
> files, I
> just wanted to ensure that I had explored all of the targets
> with this
> proposal.  It can't be done the same way on win32, so end of
> story.
> 
> - Andrew
> --
> Tongue-twister: Say "Peggy Babcock" 10 times without
> stumbling...