On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:18:07PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > Right now we're unconditionally adding RPATH information to the > installed binaries and libraries, but that's not always desired > > Debian explicitly passes --disable-rpath to configure, and while > I haven't been able to find the same option in the spec file for > either Fedora or RHEL, by running > > $ readelf -d /usr/bin/virsh | grep PATH > > I can see that the information is not present, so I assume they > also strip it somehow. > > Both Debian and Fedora have wiki pages encouraging packagers to > avoid setting RPATH: > > https://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPath_Packaging_Draft > > Given the above I'm not actually sure whether there even is a > valid usecase for RPATH, but I will openly admit I don't > understand the problem space well enough to pass judgement. So, > assuming there are scenarios where we want RPATH information to > be present, our only course of action is making its inclusion > configurable, just like it was with autotools. I'd like us to query whether we really want rpath at all. I've looked at various other apps using Meson. Out of glib, networkmanager, systemd, and gtk, only systemd sets install_rpath and that's on its binaries. So I think we could likely simplify by dropping the install_rpath rules. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
