[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --rpath on 1.7.8
From: |
Scott James Remnant |
Subject: |
Re: --rpath on 1.7.8 |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:19:47 +0000 |
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 04:41, address@hidden wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:29:23AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 03:20, address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:01:17PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > > Could you do './libtool --version' from the software's source directory
> > > > for me... I strongly suspect you've got a Debian libtool there <g>
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the right guess.
> > >
> > > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.5.0a (1.1220.2.33 2003/09/29 11:43:50) Debian:
> > > 103 $
> > >
> > The developer of that piece of software was obviously using Debian
> > unstable (Rev 103 is libtool_1.5-4); that added /usr/X11R6/lib and
> > /usr/local/lib to the assumed library paths.
>
> By assumed library paths does that mean the paths that the system knows
> about and therefore do not need to be included as rpath settings when
> linking?
>
> Is there a problem with always using -rpath when linking? I.e. was
> adding /usr/local/lib to the binary's paths causing a problem before?
>
It's a Debian thing not to rpath to libraries, I've changed the patch
for one that adds a -no-rpath option for maintainers to put in their
packages' LDFLAGS.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part