iconv vs. libiconv confusion
Mon Feb 11 22:32:00 GMT 2008
On 11 February 2008 19:13, Reini Urban wrote:
> 2008/2/11, Dave Korn <dave.korn@PCYM>:
>> Does anyone understand the difference between iconv_open and
>> libiconv_open, and why the libiconv package supplies a header that
>> declares only iconv_XXX and a library that defines only libiconv_XXXX? I
>> find this confusing, and so does ./configure and friends.
> libiconv_xxx was used for a seperate and probably newer libiconv installed,
Sorry, I can't parse that!
> while iconv_xxx usually comes with glibc.
To elaborate: I'm building graphviz. Its configure correctly spotted we
have no iconv_xxx functions in the library, so did not define HAVE_ICONV; the
application the supplies its own dummy stubbed-out versions of the
iconv_open/iconv/iconv_close functions, but although those functions don't
exist they /are/ prototyped in the header file and hence the build fails
because the dummy versions don't have quite the same prototypes as the
non-existing ones declared in the header file.
There are any number of fairly simple solutions to this clash, but I am
hoping to get a slightly fuller understanding of the situation before I go
> Is libiconv from me? I'll have to check these mistakes then.
Um, no, I don't think so; according to the package maintainers' list posted
on 12/12 last year to -apps, Chuck W. maintains libiconv/libiconv2.
> clisp, where iconv is coming from, never used libiconv_*,
> its iconv.m4 just tests for the main iconv_open, _close functions.
This has nothing to do with clisp. As far as I can see, you're completely
off the hook, but thanks for helping anyway!
[*] - My understanding of i18n is on about the same level as a tourist who
thinks that translating == shouting louder! ;-)
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin