On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:13:45PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 15:02 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > * when package contains some files matching "^.*\.so", but in directory
> > not default linker search paths (e.g. /opt/package/bundled-lib/libfoo.so)
> > don't register it as libfoo provider, because it's possible that there
> > is different package providing libfoo.so in ${libdir} and that would
> > be better shlib provider for other packages to depend on
> > * recipes providing libs intentionally in some other directory can
> > define own SHLIBSSEARCHDIRS value
> >
> > [YOCTO #4628]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > meta/classes/package.bbclass | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Doesn't this mean we lose automatic dependencies for libraries not in
> the default system paths after this change?True, recipes with such libraries would need to append to SHLIBSSEARCHDIRS > We should really be respecting the libraries RPATH in this code and > searching the places it will look... I agree we should respect RPATH, but sometimes it is more complicated, because your own binaries can have RPATH pointing to /opt/package/bundled-lib/libfoo.so, but you don't want any other recipe to find your libfoo.so, because there is preferred "system" /usr/lib/libfoo.so So in ideal case we should respect combination of default search path, ld.so.conf, RPATH and PRIVATE_LIBS :/. I don't mind if you drop this one from patchset, it's the most controversial one and can be work-arounded by carefully maintained PRIVATE_LIBS list. -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
