Re: -rpath with libtool and Debian Linux
On 27 Jan 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 27, 1999, Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jan 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
[watch indenting carefully : I wrote this next bit, of course]
> > In general, it is not useful to have multiple versions of the same
> > package.
>
> You're probably talking about the single-user workstation model. I'm
> talking about a networked multi-user model, in which some users need
> (for reasons only they understand :-) particular versions of, say, GNU
> Emacs and gcc installed.
In general, such a situation only arises because of a bug in the software.
That is why I say that, in general, it is not useful.
> > Nonetheless, you are refusing to support it.
>
> I'm not refusing to support it. I'm just inclined to avoid having an
> easy-to-use flag to disable explicit hard-coding of library paths
> because:
>
> 1) it would be hard to make it behave correctly in a portable way (and
> libtool would be useless if it were not for being portable);
Special case-it for linux, if you will. Libtool has plenty of special
cases as it is.
>
> 2) it should not be necessary if you play by libtool rules, i.e., you
> pre-declare where libraries are going to be installed and keep them
> there forever (or until they're no longer needed);
>
We don't want to play by libtool rules. We don't see that as a sensible
restriction.
[more information to follow in a separate follow-up]
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: