On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Jeremy White wrote:
> If the -rpath did *not* take precedent over LD_LIBRARY_PATH,
> then I would not object to it, but that precedence is, IMHO, a nasty
> hidden surprise.
>
> For example, in the RPM I've nearly finished building,
> I've allowed for the installation to be relocated.
> So, you can do rpm -i wine-0.2000-1108 (which goes to /opt/wine).
> Later, you can do a rpm -i --prefix=/opt/newwine wine-0.2000-1216,
> and install to /opt/newwine.
There's no sense in aiming for ultraclean rpath solutions... as I
understand, neither rpath, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, nor ld.so.conf modifications
will be required in Wine 1.0 anyway, because by then we should have
Alexandre's perfect DLL separation with import system that makes ELF
dependencies a thing of the past. The problem that rpath, ld.so.conf
modifications, etc, aims to solve won't exist anymore once Alexandre
finishes his work. I'd just go for rpath without relocation until then.
And I'd definitely *not* go for the editing-the-ld.so.conf solution.
Conflicts with gnumeric's libole2.so have already been reported to the
Debian bug tracker in the past...
