Trying to understand program/app start-up methods...
Posted: Sat 09 Dec 2017, 01:05
Evening, all.
I've got a query; about summat I've been mulling over for a while now. I'm not certain this is even the right place to ask, but, here goes anyway.....
----------------------------------------------------------
As somebody who's been 'packaging' for a while, I'm used to the complete business of compiled binaries, shared libs (aka dependencies), desktop entries, config files.....the whole shebang. I'm trying to understand why it is that different progs & apps seem to start in different ways.
A compiled, executable 'binary' is easy enough to figure out. So long as everything it needs is in place, it doesn't matter whether you start it from a .desktop file, a script of some kind, even clicking directly on the binary itself.....the application will start.
Where I'm coming a wee bit unstuck is the area of 'wrapper-scripts'. I've used 'em for long enough; the Chromium-based browsers spring to mind here. (I installed the Kdenlive video editor into a fresh install of Tahr 606 this evening, and noticed the same thing...)
The 'bulk' of the program is in one huge, 'shared library'. You can't start it by 'clicking' on it directly; Pup assumes you want to check dependencies, and up comes 'list-dd'. But you start it from the terminal, or via a wee script, specifying the full path to the 'shared library'.....and it'll start up straightaway, just as though you've clicked on a binary executable.
Why is that? Dead curious, I am...! Just wondered if anybody had any pearls of wisdom, or observations to dispense with regard to this.....or, even better still, an understanding of the actual 'mechanics' behind this.
The Mozilla-based browsers seem to be a hybrid exception to the rule. The bulk of FF/PaleMoon/SeaMonkey/'Light'/whatever, lies in a single, giant shared library; libxul.so. Yet they start via a binary executable... Again (just out of curiosity, like).....why the difference?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They say curiosity killed the cat. If that's applied to me, this 'cat' has had his 'nine lives' many times over..!
Mike.
I've got a query; about summat I've been mulling over for a while now. I'm not certain this is even the right place to ask, but, here goes anyway.....
----------------------------------------------------------
As somebody who's been 'packaging' for a while, I'm used to the complete business of compiled binaries, shared libs (aka dependencies), desktop entries, config files.....the whole shebang. I'm trying to understand why it is that different progs & apps seem to start in different ways.
A compiled, executable 'binary' is easy enough to figure out. So long as everything it needs is in place, it doesn't matter whether you start it from a .desktop file, a script of some kind, even clicking directly on the binary itself.....the application will start.
Where I'm coming a wee bit unstuck is the area of 'wrapper-scripts'. I've used 'em for long enough; the Chromium-based browsers spring to mind here. (I installed the Kdenlive video editor into a fresh install of Tahr 606 this evening, and noticed the same thing...)
The 'bulk' of the program is in one huge, 'shared library'. You can't start it by 'clicking' on it directly; Pup assumes you want to check dependencies, and up comes 'list-dd'. But you start it from the terminal, or via a wee script, specifying the full path to the 'shared library'.....and it'll start up straightaway, just as though you've clicked on a binary executable.
Why is that? Dead curious, I am...! Just wondered if anybody had any pearls of wisdom, or observations to dispense with regard to this.....or, even better still, an understanding of the actual 'mechanics' behind this.
The Mozilla-based browsers seem to be a hybrid exception to the rule. The bulk of FF/PaleMoon/SeaMonkey/'Light'/whatever, lies in a single, giant shared library; libxul.so. Yet they start via a binary executable... Again (just out of curiosity, like).....why the difference?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They say curiosity killed the cat. If that's applied to me, this 'cat' has had his 'nine lives' many times over..!
Mike.