On Mon 16 Jun 2014 06:39:40 Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:10:14AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Mon 28 Apr 2014 09:32:40 Salz, Rich wrote: > > > > While rpaths are not needed in some contexts, they are important in > > > > others, please do not remove rpath support. > > > > > > Yes, such as cross-compiling or embedded systems. I think it's > > > reasonable > > > to make it a config option tho. > > > > eh ? rpaths are not needed when cross-compiling or for embedded. they're > > needed only when people are installing into non-standard paths and can't > > be > > bothered to update their ld.so.conf mechanisms to include those paths. > > "can't be bothered" is a rather loaded term. Sometimes it is a bad > idea to force every application on a system to look for libraries > in a location needed by just one. We should acknowledge that rpaths > are sometimes useful.
s/sometimes/rarely/ even then, it's trivial to keep this behavior -- set LDFLAGS yourself to your non-standard paths. i don't think using rpath is a sane default. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
