On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 19:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 > > 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. > Yup, that's unsurprising. Every RedHat box I'd come across had /usr/local/lib listed in ld.so.conf, so I never noticed it was the wrong thing to do.
> > 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?
>
Because it is forbidden for Debian packages (.deb files) to contain
libraries with RPATH in them.
> 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.
>
The option would be supplied to libtool at application compile time,
rather than breaking libtool depending on the source platform.
Scott
--
"Fucking moron. You are an ass hole."
-- Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> doesn't like bugs in
general, let alone people fixing them for him.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
