On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:02:45PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > [...] > > > > But i have the feeling that that the rpath is not really there to find > > > > the stublibs, which are found by the ocaml ld.conf file, but to find the > > > > C libraries these stublibs wrap, and this is why directories like > > > > /usr/lib and /usr/X11R6/lib are used. And especially you are not > > > > supposed to link a stublib from another. > > > > > > > > So, my impression is that the rpath are usefull for homemade stublibs, > > > > > > Yes, it can override system values. > > > > > > > but can be safely ignored for debian packages. > > > > > > I disagree, IMO lintian check is meaningful and should not be ignored. > > > > Err, i said the upstream need for an rpath should be ignored, that is > > that we can safely remove the rpath. > > I then misunderstood your position, sorry :(
No problem, i noticed it. > [...] > > > This is the essence of -rpath, to provide a strong contract between > > > pieces of > > > softwares. But I am not sure that it is compatible with how we are > > > building > > > packages (i.e. linking with libraries which are not installed into their > > > definitive location), this is why this lintian check should be looked at > > > carefully. Is the executable built against the right libraries? > > > > Since all such checks is about libraries in standard places (/usr/lib > > and /usr/X11R6/lib mostly), i think it is only a paranoid usage of rpath > > by upstream because they don't have the chance to work on an integrated > > distribution, and can make no guess about what will go where. > > Exactly, upstream view is very different from ours. Note that Alexandre > Oliva is now paid by Red Hat, but I am not sure he changed his mind, > because he wants libtool to be portable and behave the same way everywhere. > > [...] > > I think it would be nice if upstream included a -norpath or something > > such option which would allow us to create stublibs without rpath and be > > used in debian packages. Third party packages would follow as usual. > > 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. > 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. Friendly, Sven Luther