Re: ocaml compiled binaries and rpath
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:24:40PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
> > > This was the exact subject of the thread in debian-devel in 1999/01.
> > > Alexandre Oliva explicitly told he did not want to implement such a flag
> > > in libtool, because it provides more harm than good in the general case.
> >
> > Well, but the libtool and the ocaml case is different. A flag that is
> > going to be used only by the debian packager is no harm.
>
> This has been asked to libtool upstream, so cases are not that different ;)
Well, i think there are different in scope. libtool is a complicated
tool which is used by a lot of packages in a lot of different ways.
Ocaml on the other side is not so widely used, and the -rpath is only
used for C bindings, which further limit its usage. Also upstream and
third parties packages have mostly a common or more limited way of
building, and are maybe not entrenched in legacy ways of building and
such.
> > > IMO you have the right solution, but upstream might be reluctant to
> > > implement it in this case too.
> >
> > Well, i can always patch my debian ocaml package, can i not.
>
> Yes, IIRC libtool was hacked this way. But then upstream continues to
> believe that this is a dirty hack.
> We should first investigate this issue to understand exactly how it works,
> ask upstream to consider our position, and then patch Debian ocaml if no
> consensus can be reached.
> I will try to investigate the planets case, to see why RPATH is included
> and if it can safely be avoided in packages.
I know where it comes from, it is inherited by the dlllabltk.so stublib,
and can be removed without fear.
A good test would also be to remove it from dlllabltk.so and then
rebuild planets.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: