On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:19:47PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > 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
Hi Scott, Sorry, I'm being slow (minded) today and not really following what you are saying. If I specify a --prefix to configure then there's an rpath used, but if I don't use a prefix the package is built for /usr/local/lib but without an rpath. That's fine on Debian where /usr/local/lib is in ld.so.conf, but on other systems where /usr/local/lib is not listed (like Red Had 9) then the program fails after installation. > I've changed the patch for one that adds a -no-rpath option for > maintainers to put in their packages' LDFLAGS. Sorry, I still don't understand what that means. What does that option do? Force building without an -rpath at link time? And if so, why would someone want to use that option? I'm using the Debian packages on my machine. I'm creating an application for others (like users of RH9) to use. How should the autotools decide if -rpath should be used or not? Seems like it should be used when the installation directory is not listed in ld.so.conf. Anyone know Red Hat's reasoning for not have /usr/local/lib as a default search path? -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
