[Bug 22132] update configure to work with mpg123 1.11.0

[wine-bugs at winehq.org]

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22132





--- Comment #14 from Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum at orgis.org>  2010-03-23 14:13:39 ---
Dimitri: AFAIK, file descriptors are not just handles when it comes to large
file mode. There are flags attached depending on small large file mode... and
they differ in behaviour when hitting the 2G boundary, I'm quite sure. Unless I
know enough to be sure that there is no problem, I have to assume that there is
one.

And yes, you suggested that I should do the things like glibc does them, that
is the most easy solution for users of the library. And heck, I _care_ for
binary compatibility (you can judge by the amount of comment text I produce),
but my resources are limited. I've read through
http://ac-archive.sourceforge.net/largefile/ and pondered about what I can do
to fix the situation. I took the advice of going for the low-maintenance
twinlibs approach
(http://ac-archive.sourceforge.net/largefile/use_twinlibs.html) which I can
manage easily just by ensuring that my code is off_t clean and changing soname
for the largefile variant. I took the warnings there seriously -- the wrapper
code for dualmode needs time an care to be written and needs to be maintained.
It is a possibility for me to introduce subtle bugs, that again cost time.

At least I am more friendly than GnuPG:
http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gpgme/Largefile-Support-_0028LFS_0029.html
... I added the possiblity to have both versions installed, catering small file
apps and large file apps.
That is real value, the dualmode library would be sugar on top, and I drew the
line there for me: I cannot invest _all_ my time in the mpg123 API (time I
should spend on my "real" work anyway, totally unrelated to mpg123). Unless
someone steps up to invest his time to introduce dual mode in libmpg123, I am
sorry that it won't come.

So of course I hope this doesn't cause wine to drop libmpg123, and I am torn by
trying to help and apparently making things worse... would it be better if I'd
had changed nothing? I still think no... even if it's complicated, the twinlibs
offer a stable ABI that one can rely on in future. First reliability, then
convenience. I do care. But I also try to take care of myself and that includes
limiting the nights I spend on hacking on such things.

Considering the long list of broken Linux libraries: I consider the idea of
this optional large file support that defaults to small off_t being broken
(especially in combination with autoconf macros that usually turn it on). But
that is my opinion and that helps nobody. And, well, even if one considers the
library to be broken, it is a brokeness rather specific to Linux/x86. It might
be a brokenness on Solaris/x86, too, but only after the Sun Compiler stopped
miscompiling parts of mpg123:-/

Considering the configure patch: Can I assume that, while you condemn the idea
and really, really, do not like it, it will still be included in wine? Or did I
really start a discussion now about wine changing to another library?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.