I'm pretty sure there's an API for specifying the system image path in julia_init. Maybe not documented in enough detail yet.
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:43:52 PM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: > > One mystery is solved. Elliot Saba pointed out that I was issuing the > wrong command to look for symbols in libjulia.so. And in fact libjulia.so > is expected to be in the "odd" location that I reported, on Ubuntu. > > And linking against it does in fact work. > > So that leaves one remaining issue, namely that there is a hard coded > relative path for sys.so somewhere so that embedding doesn't work unless > the compiled binary is in a specific location relative to sys.so. > > This means that a user trying to do embedding with say an Ubuntu installed > libjulia.so would need sudo privileges to put the binary in the right > location. I'm not sure where exactly Julia looks for its sys.so, but on > Ubuntu at least, it looks in the wrong place. > > Bill. > > On 9 December 2015 at 05:00, Bill Hart <goodwi...@googlemail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9 December 2015 at 04:47, Tony Kelman <to...@kelman.net <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >>> I'd think a simple shell script, install-julia.sh or something, would be >>> better than a Makefile - you don't always have build-essential installed. >>> Putting something in contrib (along with a corresponding uninstall-julia.sh >>> script?) and adding it to the `make binary-dist` tarball generation rules >>> for Linux would be okay by me. >>> >> >> Yes a shell script ought to do it. I'll add it to my todo list (which is >> quite long). >> >> Bill. >> >> >
