Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 25 August 2009 18:37:54 Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 20:44 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 05:17:49PM CEST: >>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Anssi Hannula wrote: >>>>> I think the proper way to solve this is to not link to dependency_libs >>>>> when linking dynamically on systems where it is not needed to link to >>>>> those. I haven't seen any correctly working patches that implement >>>>> this. >>>> Relying on the OS's implicit dependency features seems to be an >>>> approach which is fraught with peril. >>> With GNU/Linux, and libraries all being in directories searched by >>> default by both the link editor and the runtime linker, the problems >>> are fairly limited. IIRC Debian requires that you link directly against >>> all libraries that you require directly. >>> >>> The problems start as soon as you link (directly or indirectly) against >>> libraries in directories not searched by default. IOW: typically >>> anything not provided by a properly packaged Debian package, installed >>> by the user or the system maintainer. >> Surely at least on Linux the -rpath linker option would be a much better >> way to solve this? > > a combo of -rpath and -rpath-link ...
Well, -rpath is already added by libtool when a dependency is not in the standard library search path. AFAICS -rpath-link would be useful if we want to be double-sure that it works, e.g. in case RPATH of a library/app has been tampered with. I'm not taking a stance on whether -rpath-link should be added or not, though. -- Anssi Hannula _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool