[unixODBC-dev] Intended use of odbcinst wrt log/ini/lst?
nick at lurcher.org
Wed Mar 30 07:23:55 BST 2005
Eric Sharkey wrote:
>I'd like to revisit the topic of what the odbcinst library is supposed
>Nick, at the end of last year, you added an export symbol list to
>the odbcinst Makefile.am which appears to be limiting the functions
>exported by this library. What was your intention with this change?
>Are you deliberately trying to make log/lst/ini functions not available
>from this library?
>There seem to be three sensible options:
> 1. odbcinst provides log/ini/lst (unixODBC 2.2.10 and eariler)
> 2. odbcinst does not provide log/ini/lst, but these are available
> as separate installed libraries provided by unixODBC
> (i.e., they get installed when you run "make install")
> 3. no part of unixODBC provides log/ini/lst, but these libraries
> are available as a separate source package, independently
> (4). log/ini/lst are internal to unixODBC and not available
> as a standard package (this seems to be the current situation)
>Which of these are you intending, or if none, how is this supposed to
I guess 4. The idea was to provide all but no more than is provide under
windows. I think adding 2 would work for me, but I would prefer that the
driver manager and odbcinst use convienence libs so there are less deps
fpr installers to worry about.
The idea of unixODBC (at least the core components) providing more than
the ODBC API worries me, as we then get problems when they are removed
>Basically, what it comes down to, is that I need to know how to link
>my driver, which is built on top of the unixODBC template driver,
>which uses log/ini/lst.
>Previously (<=2.2.10), I just linked to odbcinst and it worked,
>but now it doesn't without modification to the unixodbc sources.
I am open to making them seperate libs, I just would prefer if the DM
don't dynamically link to them.
FWIW, if I was starting again, I would argue strongly to provide the
option of XML based config files.
More information about the unixODBC-dev