Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Those who compile from source, you mean? No packages install things there,
> only people who compile wine themselves do. Since when did it become Wine
> policy to not leave this kind of installation issue to the distribution,
> not to the packager, not to the end-user, but to the Wine build system?
> What happened to "adding /usr/local/lib to ld.so.conf is not a Makefile
> issue, but an end-user issue" (or an issue for tools/wineinstall), if
> we're just going to have "adding /usr/local/lib to wine's built-in rpath
> is the Wine team's responsibility because a lot of users compile from
> source without reading docs" instead? Wine isn't the only application to
> install libs into the pretty-standard path /usr/local/lib when compiling
> from source.
There is no principle that says that things have to be hard for
users. Messing with system files like /etc/ld.so.conf is not something
you want to do automatically in the build process; but adding rpath at
link time in our own libraries is obviously part of the build process
(I don't see how you'd do that from the install script anyway).
Now you can argue that we shouldn't add rpath at all and let the user
worry about fixing ld.so.conf; but I'm not sure I see what this would
gain us. As long as the rpath feature is here, we might as well use it
and save users trouble; unless there is some drawback to it that I
missed.
> Yes, so would mine (if we added the configurability I mentioned), but
> that's not what you really wanted, was it?
No, it's a temporary workaround, as is your solution; only this one is
simpler IMO.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
