Re: Shared library defines a RPATH
I demand that Mikael Hedin may or may not have written...
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <email@example.com> writes:
>> No, it is not. We don't want rpath because we want our libraries to be
>> "relocatable" file-system wise. So, there are absolutely no exceptions.
> Please explain a bit further, I don't see the point here. The libs and the
> apps are all in /usr/lib/ogle and come from the same package.
* A rpath- or runpath-like approach, where the paths are relative to one of
the default search directories.
* Embedding of relative pathnames in the library, e.g. instead of setting
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/foo (or similarly for rpath) for a binary which
requires libbar.so from that directory, have it linked to foo/libbar.so.
Both would require changes to ld and ld-linux.so; both are relocatable, but
the latter gets around problems should it happen that both libfoo.so and
bar/libfoo.so exist and are both needed by the program (but it needs a "link
I don't really expect them to happen, though; still, I now have a patch (bug
154611) to allow chrpath to convert rpath->runpath and to handle both...
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| Linux PC, Risc PC | youmustbejoking | Northumberland
| No Wodniws here | demon co uk | Toon Army
Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com