Re: -rpath with libtool and Debian Linux
On Jan 29, 1999, Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 07:11:54AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 1999, Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Therefore, we chose to solve that particular problem (the libc5-6
>> > transition) by moving libraries around, knowing that our linker was up to
>> > the job.
>>
>> It is now clear that it is not. :-(
> It IS, as long as you don't use rpath.
And libtool works perfectly well, as long as you don't replace
libraries with incompatible versions. What makes you think the
maintainers of libtool should introduce potential problems and break
backward compatibility just to fix a (IMHO) bad choice you have made,
even knowing that modifying libtool at this point would not contribute
in *any* way to fix the problem you currently have?
> The user is obviously free to use them for locally compiled stuff,
> and AFAIK it will behave as advertised. Yes, when Debian moves those
> libraries in the future, those programs will break. The user
> shouldn't really use rpath.
Maybe you should ask distributors of Debian to print this advice in
any CD-ROM containing Debian distributions they sell.
> But there are plenty of other ways for a user to hose their system;
> we really can't stop them doing it.
That's not the point. By replacing libraries with (in)compatible
versions, you're actively working to hose users' systems.
> Modifying libtool to remove -rpath fixes the problem at our end.
Nope, because the current problem has to do with pre-installed
programs. Modifying the libtool script will, by no means, fix this
problem.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
Reply to: