Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Ying LEE

One headache to use Fuse is that most likely the target OS has another version of libfuse already. So sometimes my fuse application doesn't run normally due to version conflicts. And I have to adjust environment manually.

I am thinking maybe I can link static library (.a file) of libfuse instead of dynamic library (.so file).  In theory, my application won't use external libfuse any more and potential version conflicts are solved.

Does it work? Is it a good solution?

Thank you for sharing your opinions,


Ying LI




--

Regards,

Mr. Ying LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Remember. Let go. Move on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Stef Bon-2
Ying LI,

What is the problem.
Version may have different functionality, but the API is the same.

Stef

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Stef Bon-2
2016-11-19 15:24 GMT+01:00 Michael Theall <[hidden email]>:
> Stef,
>
> I ran into this problem a lot since many of my customers were running
> distributions of Linux with older versions of libfuse. This meant they
> would miss out on features present in newer versions of libfuse even
> though their kernel's FUSE module supported it. For example: fallocate
> support on RHEL 6.

I understand that an older libfuse means loss of functionality (a nobrainer).
But why not upgrading to a newer version?
Is this a problem?

Stef

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Ying LEE
In reply to this post by Stef Bon-2

1. In my code, I #define FUSE_USE_VERSION 29. I cannot suppose my code works on other versions also.
2. The mount options set for different 2.x versions are not the same. Some options were added after 2.0. I do reply mount options to improve performance. Also, I provide script file to users, within the file, mount options are used.
3. From the production view, I won't let users try another version just in case there are some incompatibility problems.




On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:13 PM Stef Bon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ying LI,

What is the problem.
Version may have different functionality, but the API is the same.

Stef
--

Regards,

Mr. Ying LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Remember. Let go. Move on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Antonio SJ Musumeci
Static compiling is fine functionally. The only concern is licensing.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Ying LEE <[hidden email]> wrote:

1. In my code, I #define FUSE_USE_VERSION 29. I cannot suppose my code works on other versions also.
2. The mount options set for different 2.x versions are not the same. Some options were added after 2.0. I do reply mount options to improve performance. Also, I provide script file to users, within the file, mount options are used.
3. From the production view, I won't let users try another version just in case there are some incompatibility problems.




On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:13 PM Stef Bon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ying LI,

What is the problem.
Version may have different functionality, but the API is the same.

Stef
--

Regards,

Mr. Ying LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Remember. Let go. Move on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Nikolaus Rath
In reply to this post by Ying LEE
On Nov 19 2016, Ying LEE <[hidden email]> wrote:
> One headache to use Fuse is that most likely the target OS has another
> version of libfuse already. So sometimes my fuse application doesn't run
> normally due to version conflicts. And I have to adjust environment
> manually.

Please provide some more details of the problems. libfuse 2.x should be
fully backwards compatible.

> I am thinking maybe I can link static library (.a file) of libfuse instead
> of dynamic library (.so file).  In theory, my application won't use
> external libfuse any more and potential version conflicts are solved.
>
> Does it work?

Probably, yes.

> Is it a good solution?

No, your actual problem is most likely something else.


Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is linking fuse static library instead of dynamic library a good solution to solve version conflicts?

Nikolaus Rath
In reply to this post by Ying LEE
On Nov 19 2016, Ying LEE <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1. In my code, I #define FUSE_USE_VERSION 29. I cannot suppose my code
> works on other versions also.

I don't know if your code supports older versions, but just defining
FUSE_USE_VERSION 2.9 does *not* make in incompatible with older
versions. You just need to *build* with at least fuse 2.9 headers. You
should still be able to run the resulting binary with older library
versions.

> 2. The mount options set for different 2.x versions are not the same. Some
> options were added after 2.0. I do reply mount options to improve
> performance. Also, I provide script file to users, within the file, mount
> options are used.

Yes, that would be a problem.

Best,
-Nikolaus

--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel
Loading...