On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:24:40PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > [...] > > > This was the exact subject of the thread in debian-devel in 1999/01. > > > Alexandre Oliva explicitly told he did not want to implement such a flag > > > in libtool, because it provides more harm than good in the general case. > > > > Well, but the libtool and the ocaml case is different. A flag that is > > going to be used only by the debian packager is no harm. > > This has been asked to libtool upstream, so cases are not that different ;)
Well, i think there are different in scope. libtool is a complicated tool which is used by a lot of packages in a lot of different ways. Ocaml on the other side is not so widely used, and the -rpath is only used for C bindings, which further limit its usage. Also upstream and third parties packages have mostly a common or more limited way of building, and are maybe not entrenched in legacy ways of building and such. > > > IMO you have the right solution, but upstream might be reluctant to > > > implement it in this case too. > > > > Well, i can always patch my debian ocaml package, can i not. > > Yes, IIRC libtool was hacked this way. But then upstream continues to > believe that this is a dirty hack. > We should first investigate this issue to understand exactly how it works, > ask upstream to consider our position, and then patch Debian ocaml if no > consensus can be reached. > I will try to investigate the planets case, to see why RPATH is included > and if it can safely be avoided in packages. I know where it comes from, it is inherited by the dlllabltk.so stublib, and can be removed without fear. A good test would also be to remove it from dlllabltk.so and then rebuild planets. Friendly, Sven Luther
