On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:13 -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Christopher Aillon wrote: > >> 3 /usr/lib64/firefox-2.0.0.2 > > > > Some 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 munging LD_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 -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
