[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: --rpath on 1.7.8

From: Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: --rpath on 1.7.8
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:09:12 +0000

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, 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, 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
The option would be supplied to libtool at application compile time,
rather than breaking libtool depending on the source platform.

"Fucking moron. You are an ass hole."

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

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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]