Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 02:34:45AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > > > Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > Upstream choose to use rpath, and when i asked on d-m, a huge > > > > > flameware > > > > > about the usage of rpath followed, which didn't give me a conclusive > > > > > answer in any direction. Upstream mostly ignored my question (well > > > > > they > > > > > responded, but they like rpath). > > > > > > > > The problem with rpath, as far as I gathered from various falmes, is > > > > that you depend on the library your build with. Slight changes of the > > > > libraries make the binary unusable, like moving the library or version > > > > changes. Without rpath it still find the library. > > > > > > Yes, do you want to argue with upstream ? > > > > No, just fix the debian package of ocaml. > > Please, submit a patch about it, and i will consider applying it ... > > More seriously, as i have no idea how the rpath stuff works internally, > i am very badly placed about doing this kind of work, don't you think ?
Same here. I greped the source and it seems rpath is only in 3 files, only of them source. rpath is in the configure stuff, so there might be a compiletime option to turn it off already. Its low on my todo list. I will ignore it till something breaks, someone complains or I get bored. > ... > the second one would divert the binaries of the first one, or something > such. mldonkey is a start script (doing a cd and starting the real mldonkey), the mldonkey and 2 small example files. I think packages that conflict would be good enough. Making them coexist or divert each other probably uses more space than duplicate example files and startup script. I don't think someone wants the bytecompile and optimised on the same system. MfG Goswin