Re: lintian: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
On Thu, 9 May 2002 09:58:30 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
>On Thu, 09 May 2002, Marc Haber wrote:
>> From the docs I found, there is no legitimate reason for any package
>> to define rpath on a Debian system. Is this correct? Does this also
>Yes, for libraries. Plugins may use/need rpath.
What exactly is the definition of a plugin in this context?
>> apply to other Linux systems?
>Not really, depends on who you ask.
Sounds like this discussion has been done in the past. Any idea where
I can find both side's arguments?
>> to do so without seriously breaking something. Could anybody more
>> knowledgeable help me with this?
>There is a rpath-reaper packaged for Debian (I don't recall the name), it
>will "fix" the binaries the hard way.
You mean chrpath? That looks like a bad hack for me.
>> Is it adiviseable to ask upstream to refrain from setting rpath, or am
>> I being unreasonable here?
>Don't bother, someone will ask him to provide rpath as soon as he removes
>it. You could, however, ask him to FIX the --disable-rpath functionality...
Good idea ;)
They might ask me to provide a patch. How hard would that change be
for the linux-atm package?
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org