On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 07:36:01 am Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/22/2010 07:20 AM +9:00: > > On 06/21/2010 04:38 PM, Jirka Hladky wrote: > >> Hello everybody! > >> > >> I have run into rpath issue when creating rpm for hwloc (you might want > >> to check package review ticket at > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606498) > >> > >> rpath is added by libtool. Libraries are getting installed into > >> /usr/lib64 but libtool does not recognize this as default library > >> location on 64-bit system. > >> > >> One solution was to add "/usr/lib64" directory into /etc/ld.so.conf. > >> > >> Practical solution to get rpm was to add > >> sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' > >> libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' > >> libtool into the %configure stage in rpm specs. > >> > >> I would like to get rid of these sed lines. > >> > >> For me it seems either that libtool is buggy or "/usr/lib64" directory > >> is missing in /etc/ld.so.conf. > >> > >> I (together with upstream) would highly appreciate any feedback on it. > > > > I think (although I admit that I am not an expert here) that if the > > source uses a current version of libtool, it will just DTRT. I'm > > guessing it was libtoolized with one of the older versions. > > > > You might try overriding the bundled copy by passing > > "LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool" with every make invocation, which sometimes > > just works. > > I wouldn't recommend this in practice (as you'd then have BuildRequires: > > libtool>= some.version), but it will give you an idea of whether I'm > > right or not. > > > > More often than not, there are other necessary changes to be made to the > > autotooling in the sources to use the newer libtool, and I'm not the one > > to help you with how to make those. :/ > > > > hth, > > > > ~spot > > Well, actually the upstream libtool (Fedora uses 2.2.6a) does not take > care of /usr/lib64 for rpath (and this seems the same for the latest > 2.2.8). What I usually say is that: > ---------- > - Usually the reason that unneeded rpath /usr/lib64 is added to > the rebuilt binary is that the upstream developer uses libtool > which does not take special care of /usr/lib64 for > sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec, while Fedora's libtool take care of > this by adding a patch. See the below patch: > > > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/libtool/devel/libtool-2.2.6a-rpat > h.patch?content-type=text%2Fplain&view=co > > So actually for most cases, the case that rpath /usr/lib64 is added > (only for 64 bits arch) can be avoided by > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > sed -i.libdir_syssearch -e \ > '/sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec/s|/usr/lib |/usr/lib /usr/lib64 /lib /lib64 > |' \ configure > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > i.e. just add the needed paths to sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec in > configure (note that libtool in the build directory is generated by > configure) before calling %configure. > - You can alternatively do "autoreconf -fi", however calling > autotools is not recommended unless unavoidable. > ---------- > > So it is highly possible that if the upstream does not use Fedora (i.e. > does not use patched libtool) rpath /usr/lib64 appears on Fedora. > And I just confirmed that this method works for this package (hwloc). > > Regards, > Mamoru > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging Hi Mamoru, thanks a lot for the explanation! You are indeed right and your solution is working! Thanks Jirka -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
