On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 04:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:29:23AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 03:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:01:17PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > Could you do './libtool --version' from the software's source directory > > > > for me... I strongly suspect you've got a Debian libtool there <g> > > > > > > Yes, that's the right guess. > > > > > > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.5.0a (1.1220.2.33 2003/09/29 11:43:50) Debian: 103 $ > > > > > The developer of that piece of software was obviously using Debian > > unstable (Rev 103 is libtool_1.5-4); that added /usr/X11R6/lib and > > /usr/local/lib to the assumed library paths. > > By assumed library paths does that mean the paths that the system knows > about and therefore do not need to be included as rpath settings when > linking? > > 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, I've changed the patch for one that adds a -no-rpath option for maintainers to put in their packages' LDFLAGS.
Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
