Re: -rpath with libtool and Debian Linux
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:27:15 -0600
> From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
>
> You're making the thing too specific. The point is that libraries can
> change; we're not the only ones that have done that (Linux isn't the only OS
> that has done that either). Forcing the paths to be in the executable when
> they do not need to be should logically be thought of as bad due this this
> possibility.
>
> Actually, I'm curious as to whether there really is another example of
> an OS which changed shared libraries without changing the soname (as
> Alexandre pointed out, that was really what caused the problem). I
> don't know of any example of that.
And, as we've pointed out, changing the soname is not a practicable
answer, until we have a cleverer automatic soname system.
Just look at the mess of libraries embeddeded in GNOME.
(Does symbol versioning fix this? I don't know...)
Whilst I'm glad that we've come to some agreement that its not necessary
to use -rpath for system directories, for some appropriate definition of
system directories (which is a decision which, for Debian, can be made at
the distribution level, so we'll get it right), I am quite baffled that
you still think it's right to enable it as default...
I really don't see why it's clever to hardcode paths... And I do see why
it's clever to have a dynamic library which goes looking for its libs, and
knows where to go... This is in fact largely orthogonal to the
'incompatible lib without soname change' argument.
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: