Re: --rpath on 1.7.8

[Scott James Remnant]

On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 19:22, address@hidden wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:19:47PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 
> > > Is there a problem with always using -rpath when linking?  I.e. was 
> > > adding /usr/local/lib to the binary's paths causing a problem before?
> > > 
> > It's a Debian thing not to rpath to libraries
> 
> That's fine on Debian where /usr/local/lib is in ld.so.conf, but on 
> other systems where /usr/local/lib is not listed  (like Red Had 9) then 
> the program fails after installation.
> 
Yup, that's unsurprising.  Every RedHat box I'd come across had
/usr/local/lib listed in ld.so.conf, so I never noticed it was the wrong
thing to do.

> > I've changed the patch for one that adds a -no-rpath option for
> > maintainers to put in their packages' LDFLAGS.
> 
> Sorry, I still don't understand what that means.  What does that option
> do?  Force building without an -rpath at link time?  And if so, why
> would someone want to use that option?
> 
Because it is forbidden for Debian packages (.deb files) to contain
libraries with RPATH in them.

> I'm using the Debian packages on my machine.  I'm creating an 
> application for others (like users of RH9) to use.  How should the 
> autotools decide if -rpath should be used or not?  Seems like it should 
> be used when the installation directory is not listed in ld.so.conf.
> 
The option would be supplied to libtool at application compile time,
rather than breaking libtool depending on the source platform.

Scott
-- 
"Fucking moron. You are an ass hole."

   -- Christian Marillat <address@hidden> doesn't like bugs in
      general, let alone people fixing them for him.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part