[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multiple -rpaths
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Multiple -rpaths |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:30:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hello Dan, Tim,
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 08:32:57PM CET:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Tim Mooney wrote:
> >
> > I thought the reason that distros remove .la files is because some distro
> > vendors feel that libtool often establishes direct link dependencies that
> > aren't needed, and those direct dependencies can cause headaches during
> > upgrades?
>
> I think this is a big one.
Ah, yes, I forgot about that issue when writing the reply; sorry.
> Mandriva has a wiki page that has collected
> a lot of information on this topic:
>
> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Overlinking
>
> They are apparently using a patch from Debian to keep libtool from
> linking all dependencies:
If the patch would not break some valid use cases (e.g., having indirect
uninstalled libtool libraries), then it could be integrated upstream,
too.
OTOH, the --as-needed approach is workable for many cases, too (except
some dlopen scenarios where you want some dependencies to be present
that would not otherwise be needed).
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, (continued)
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/11/02
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/11/02
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Jan Engelhardt, 2008/11/03
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/11/03
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/11/03
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Jan Engelhardt, 2008/11/04
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/11/04
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Tim Mooney, 2008/11/04
- Re: Multiple -rpaths, Dan Nicholson, 2008/11/04
- Re: Multiple -rpaths,
Ralf Wildenhues <=