David Boreham wrote:
We're using the first option on Fedora. We install all of the libraries in system locations, so there is no need to set rpath or have wrapper scripts for the command line programs. The only one in question is libslapd.so, and we could put that in the system $_libdir, or some other directory that is "approved" by the FHS. We were planning to get rid of the wrapper scripts sooner or later on Fedora. Does this have to be sooner? Are the wrapper scripts causing some problem (other than an aesthetic one)?Some more info on this:FDS was designed to install at an arbitrary subdirectory in the filesystem. rpath only supports absolute paths and paths relative to the current working directory, not the location of the binary (some platforms have some support for rpath relative to the main binary location but at the time this was lastlooked at seriously, that support was spotty and incomplete). And so we have wrappers. They allow a user to add one directory to their path and run any FDS command without regard to setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH. To remove the wrappers you'd need to give up something : install at a fixed location (and use absolute rpaths); don't give users the convenience of running commands without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH themselves; only run on platforms that have support for relative-to-binary rpath.
We require the use of wrapper scripts on almost every other platform, including RHEL4 - and, AFAIK, on other linux distros that put the NSPR and NSS bundled with the Mozilla clients in the system _libdir. Fedora solved this problem by making NSPR and NSS independent of Mozilla.
Andrew Bartlett wrote:On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:13 -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:Christopher Aillon wrote:3 /usr/lib64/firefox-2.0.0.2Some of them are intentional, such as the above. It's either rpath or munging LD_LIBRARY_PATH at startup if you want a working firefox.RPATH is perfectly fine for these purposes.Do we have a preference against wrapper scripts for mungingLD_LIBRARY_PATH (I think we should)? The reason I ask is that I've been looking at the Fedora DS situation(now a package in extras), where every binary is wrapped in a shell script to munge the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which just seems wrong to me. Likewise, where should a package place 'internal only' libraries, such as libslapd for Fedora DS, and some similar libraries in an eventual Samba4 package (to avoid bloat by static linking shared internal functionality)? Andrew Bartlett------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel-- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
