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
Author: Peter Milne
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 06:24
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 06:24
52 lines
3047 bytes
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
Author: Bill Vrotney
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:26
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:26
35 lines
2374 bytes
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