On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 11:44:23PM +0100, Mario Klebsch wrote: > Am 25.01.2005 um 11:30 schrieb Hamish Moffatt: > >It prevents you from moving libraries without recompiling > >the programs that use it. > > No, it does not. In fact, you can always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH or modify > your /etc/ld.so.conf.
I'm not sure that LD_LIBRARY_PATH overrides RPATH. Can you prove it? > >Debian has moved libraries before during big > >transitions; we moved all of the libc5-using libraries to > >/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/lib. If our programs were compiled with RPATH, we > >would have had to recompile all of those as well. > > No, we would not have had to recompile the programs, even those with > RPATH. Why not? Do you think we should have set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to add the /usr/i486-linuxlibc1/lib directory? Why would we do that? In that case, why would we bother to link the path into the binaries in the first place? You see, RPATH has no benefit at all to a distribution. It would only be useful to an individual user unable to install into system directories (/usr/lib or /usr/local/lib) who is too lazy to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > >The Linux dynamic linker (ld.so) HAS a search path facility (with the > >path > >listed in /etc/ld.so.conf); USE IT. > > rm does accept -rf and / as aruments. USE THEM. What?! > As I wrote earlier, removing RPATH from an executalbe is a simple task. > Just a single byte has to be changed to 0. What? So Debian should edit all our binaries to remove RPATH like this? I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
