On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 06:29:18PM +0200, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:57:06AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I personally am not particularly uncomfortable with shipping binary > > packages that use RPATH to find libraries in a subdirectory of /usr/lib, > > provided that they have a tight dependency on exactly the version of the > > library package they need (which for this application you'll probably need > > anyway). Other people may differ. Oh, sorry, obviously I didn't read that properly! I thought the use of RPATH was restricted to private libraries *which are not shipped as separate packages*. Okay, just to be sure: you suggest making a separate library package, but putting the libs in /usr/lib/<libpackage> and RPATH-linking the binaries, right? That is, treating the library as private, although it is a separate package. Phew. I guess then there would be no need for a -dev package? Hmm. Upstream has included the necessary header files in every pacakage which needs them. Of course the packages would still need to build-depend upon the libraries, to make the linking succeed. No problem. dpkg-shlibdeps would still choke upon the unversioned soname, but I could just hard-code the library dependency and be done with it. There would be no shlibs file. Again no problem, right? Well, if you say this approach is acceptable and if I don't find a snag, then I'll probably go for it. -- Okay, I've ripped the thread apart a bit, sorry. Please don't ignore the rest of my previous post. Thanks, Nikolaus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature