Re: [Tinycc-devel] minor fixes pushed upstream for RPM packaging

[Henry Kroll]

Well, I was interested in packing this for Fedora and maybe going
through the process of becoming a maintainer. The Fedora people contend
that the dynamic linker is "smarter;" however, they discourage rpath.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Beware_of_Rpath

The logic goes that because the library is installed in a standard
location path (/usr/lib, /usr/lib64) an rpath is not necessary.

===>    For those new to this topic, Fedora hates static libraries and
wants everything to be shared without rpath, so right now we have this
configuration:

$ ldd tcc
        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fffe2fff000)
===>    libtcc.so.1.0 => /usr/lib64/libtcc.so.1.0 (0x00007f1d37815000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x0000003063e00000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003064200000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003063a00000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003063600000)

This verifies that libtcc.so.1.0 is indeed being picked up by the
dynamic linker here on my machine and tcc -run is functioning.

$ tcc -run win32/ex*/fib.c 22
fib(22) = 17711

On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 18:37 +0100, grischka wrote:
> Henry Kroll wrote:
> > These include -rpath issues,
> 
> What are these issues with -rpath, exactly?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel