On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 14:28 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote: > On 10/03/2008, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 16:14 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > On Monday, 10 March 2008 at 15:24, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > > On the other hand, maybe I should be allowed to > > > > > include an rpath in this situation because I really always want to be > > > > > linked to that particular libperl.so > > > > > > > > This is a case where rpath usage is acceptable, imo. > > > > > > I wonder why libperl is not a proper library then. I see that it has no SONAME. > > > Are there any plans upstream to make it a proper library? > > > > Not that I'm aware of. IMHO, this is a valid rpath exception case. > > Does this also hold for Java native packages that need libjava.so and > its friends (which are under /usr/lib/jvm/java/.../$arch/...) ? Maybe. I'm not a java expert at all. Might be something to keep in mind for the folks drafting the Java guidelines. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
