🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Thread View: comp.sys.next.programmer
2 messages
2 total messages Started by Peter Milne Tue, 06 Oct 1992 06:24
Franz Allegro Common Lisp 3.1 under NeXTstep 3.0
#1749
Author: Peter Milne
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 06:24
52 lines
3047 bytes
Well I just upgraded to NeXTstep 3.0 and as expected my copy of ACL 3.1
no longer works.  It fails with the following message:

	Minor versions don't match in /usr/shlib/libNeXT_s.C.shlib
	This image cannot be executed

Now I assume that this is occurring because Franz built ACL 3.1 to use a
dynamic library (rather than producing a large statically linked executable).

Presumably re-installing ACL 3.1 under NS 3.0 won't help because source
or object files of the lisp kernel aren't available to allow re-linking with
the new version of libNeXT_s.C.shlib.

Another possibility which occurred to me was to invoke ACL 3.1 with a
script that substituted the NS 2.1 version of libNeXT_s.C.shlib.  But that
might cause poblems for other processes that require the 3.0 version
of libNeXT_s.C.shlib.

Then I wondered if I could zap the libNeXT_s.C.shlib version number in the
ACL 3.1 executable so it would match the NS 3.0 libNeXT_s.C.shlib.  Assuming
this could be done, the hope is that ACL 3.1 would work with the NS 3.0 version
of the library.  Is this worth trying?  If so, how would I determine the NS 3.0
version number and substitute it in the ACL 3.1 executable?

If my assumption that ACL 3.1 won't work under NS 3.0 because of its use
of a dynamic library, what lesson can developers learn from this.  Should
they avoid using dynamic libraries?  Are there ways of using dynamic libraries
which avoid the problem?

Of course Franz could just relink ACL 3.1 under NeXTstep 3.0 and release
an update.  However they apparently don't plan to do this because they
are applying all their resources to getting ACL 4.1 out the door.
I guess that it might not be as simple as just relinking ACL 3.1 under
NS 3.0 for them - they would need to put it thru quality assurance to
check that it worked correctly with the NS 3.0 version of the library.
Given that they are close with ACL 4.1, I can understand why they wouldn't
want to do this.

Problem is that all of us ACL 3.1 users who have moved to NS 3.0 are
without a running lisp until ACL 4.1 appears (and they pay for it).
Now Bill Vrotney has mailed to this list that "Some wonderful guys who
wish to remain anonymous have come up with a simple fix for ACL 3.1.20
work under NeXTstep 3.0 ..."  Apparently their fix gets ACL going but
not the Objective C interface.  Bill has asked them for the fix so
he could post details, but so far nothing has been posted.

Well what one group of wonderful guys can do another can do too.
My suggestion is that we work together to try and come up with a
fix.  Anyone interested?

Peter Milne	(milne@csis.dit.csiro.au)
 
Re: Franz Allegro Common Lisp 3.1 under NeXTstep 3.0
#1342
Author: Bill Vrotney
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:26
35 lines
2374 bytes
In article <1992Oct6.062407.14336@csis.dit.csiro.au> pwm@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Milne) writes:

>   Problem is that all of us ACL 3.1 users who have moved to NS 3.0 are
>   without a running lisp until ACL 4.1 appears (and they pay for it).
>   Now Bill Vrotney has mailed to this list that "Some wonderful guys who
>   wish to remain anonymous have come up with a simple fix for ACL 3.1.20
>   work under NeXTstep 3.0 ..."  Apparently their fix gets ACL going but
>   not the Objective C interface.  Bill has asked them for the fix so
>   he could post details, but so far nothing has been posted.
>
>   Well what one group of wonderful guys can do another can do too.
>   My suggestion is that we work together to try and come up with a
>   fix.  Anyone interested?

Ok, you've squeezed it out of me.

I DO have the fix from those "wonderful guys" that makes ACL work under NS
3.0. It is a patched version of the file ucl.o. But I do not have 3.0 to
verify it, although they did send me evidence that it does in fact work.

So the obvious question your probably wondering, "why not just post the
ucl.o file?". Well the reason that I haven't done that is that Franz in very
certain terms has informed me that if I do that it would be in violation of
their license agreement. However, Franz said that it would be ok with them
if I were to post a method that patched an existing user's ucl.o file. And
that is what I have been working on. I have been very busy and only have
parts of weekends to work on this.

If anyone has another approach, feel free to pursue it, as it will take me
awhile to produce the above method. In the mean time if you need Common Lisp
on NS 3.0 you might try AKCL (see the FAQ).

--
Bill Vrotney
BAH/Advanced Decision Systems
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads