Re: Debian's -rpath policy [was: What hack in ld.so?]
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> 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).
Now to convince David Engel ...