Re: ocaml compiled binaries and rpath
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:02:45PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > But i have the feeling that that the rpath is not really there to find
> > > > the stublibs, which are found by the ocaml ld.conf file, but to find the
> > > > C libraries these stublibs wrap, and this is why directories like
> > > > /usr/lib and /usr/X11R6/lib are used. And especially you are not
> > > > supposed to link a stublib from another.
> > > >
> > > > So, my impression is that the rpath are usefull for homemade stublibs,
> > >
> > > Yes, it can override system values.
> > >
> > > > but can be safely ignored for debian packages.
> > >
> > > I disagree, IMO lintian check is meaningful and should not be ignored.
> > Err, i said the upstream need for an rpath should be ignored, that is
> > that we can safely remove the rpath.
> I then misunderstood your position, sorry :(
No problem, i noticed it.
> > > This is the essence of -rpath, to provide a strong contract between pieces of
> > > softwares. But I am not sure that it is compatible with how we are building
> > > packages (i.e. linking with libraries which are not installed into their
> > > definitive location), this is why this lintian check should be looked at
> > > carefully. Is the executable built against the right libraries?
> > Since all such checks is about libraries in standard places (/usr/lib
> > and /usr/X11R6/lib mostly), i think it is only a paranoid usage of rpath
> > by upstream because they don't have the chance to work on an integrated
> > distribution, and can make no guess about what will go where.
> Exactly, upstream view is very different from ours. Note that Alexandre
> Oliva is now paid by Red Hat, but I am not sure he changed his mind,
> because he wants libtool to be portable and behave the same way everywhere.
> > I think it would be nice if upstream included a -norpath or something
> > such option which would allow us to create stublibs without rpath and be
> > used in debian packages. Third party packages would follow as usual.
> 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.
> 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.