Re: Debian's -rpath policy [was: What hack in ld.so?]
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 12:19:48PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > In short, we have only three choices, regardless of what happens in
> > libtool:
> > 1) Implement Red Hat's ugly patch in our libc5 ld.so, and thereby be
> > bugwards compatible with everybody else's Linux.
> > 2) Find some other way to make -rpath on Debian work for the common
> > cases (programs built by libtool included in this category).
> I really see no choice, if RH has patched their ld.so we simply must or
> risk being totally incompatible with a huge chunk of binaries. So we need
> to do one of the above, the most sensible is to steal RH's patch so that
> we are compatible.
I agree. Option 1 is definitely the best. I also agree with the rest of
Gordon Matzigkeits message. Debian has done a (not so) small mistake in the
libc5->libc6 transition, and it is our responsibility to fix it.
Note that the RH patch probably can't break much which isn't already broken.
(only if someone has system library installed somewhere else and tries to
addresse it with rpath, if I understood correctly. This should happen less
than libc5 binaries with rpath from other sources).
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09