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

Bug#458824: better specification for when rpath is permitted is needed

Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

While analyzing http://bugs.debian.org/456318 I noticed that there's
nothing in Policy about when binaries are allowed to use rpath.  The
question raised in that bug is whether games are allowed by FHS to
put their shared libraries in /usr/lib/games instead of /usr/lib.  But
more generally, we really need a specification of use of rpath that:

* Says that binaries must not put standard paths such as /usr/lib,
  /usr/local/lib, and so forth in their rpath since this overrides the
  ordering possibly configured by the local system administrator.  The
  system administrator may want /opt/lib take priority over all other
  library directories or something (and there are also multilib concerns).

* Mentions setting rpath to point to a private directory for a package.
  Take a clear stance on whether this is allowed for multiple cooperating
  packages or only within a single package, since this is frequently
  debated and either it's allowed or it isn't.

* Takes some stance on the /usr/lib/games question and similar questions
  about adding rpath pointing to other system directories.

I'd love it if someone could take a shot at proposed wording for this
since I have a lot on my plate at the moment.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-3-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-- no debconf information

Reply to: