[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Shared library defines a RPATH

I demand that Mikael Hedin may or may not have written...

> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> 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.

Wishlist items...?

* 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
as" option).

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
|   <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/progs.packages.html>

Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: