[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] minor fixes pushed upstream for RPM packaging
From: |
Henry Kroll |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] minor fixes pushed upstream for RPM packaging |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:10:52 -0800 |
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