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

Re: rpath issue on 64 bit architectures



Hi Jan,

Il giorno 09/dic/07, alle ore 22:33, Jan Beyer ha scritto:

Leo "costela" Antunes schrieb am 06.12.2007 16:32 Uhr:
I had to do the option for a patch on aclocal.m4 and configure
scripts with dpatch on build-time.

On aclocal4 and configure the changes are (for each occurrence): -
hardcode_into_libs=yes +  hardcode_into_libs=no

-hardcode_into_libs=$hardcode_into_libs +hardcode_into_libs=no

I haven't looked into your case, but unless I'm mistaken you
shouldn't need to patch aclocal.m4 if you're already patching the
configure script. You should either patch aclocal.m4 in case the
configure script will be re-generated on build-time (which is
unlikely your case) or patch the configure script directly. Or am I
missing something?
I can only say, I replaced 30 occurences of the upper and three
occurences of the lower change in my package's configure script (package
gwyddion). This patch gets applied correctly and the lines in the
configure script read correctly hardcode_into_libs=no.
Still, the linker gets the --rpath /usr/lib option passed and the rpath
gets built in... :-(

I'll investigate further, just wanted to share this...
Any news on your side, Francesco?


Hi Jan,
in this period I'm very busy, I haven't tested the patch to aclocal.m4,
the only test that I've done last week has been the patch of libtool after
the call of ./configure...
The one proposed in the wiki page [1], by Marcelo Magallon, in this way
you get all the calls to "--rpath" to "-D__LIBTOOL_IS_A_FOOL__" :),
I don't know if it's a bad or good solution, my original question on this thread
was this one...
Consider that you can restrict the patch of libtool only to 64 bit architectures...

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
francesco

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue

--
Francesco Namuri
francesco(at)namuri(dot)it   http://namuri.it/
id gpg key: 21A4702A          accipiter@jabber.org

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: