On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 04:22:13PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > Nobody said it would be removed soon. But it seems people want to > > remove it "eventually", with that eventually possibly being in a couple > > of centuries, if computers still exist. > > > > But if you have the intention of using it in new software, or keeping it > > in existing software, maybe you could give your reasons to those who > > deprecated it, so that either you convince them of its usefulness, or > > they convince you of not using it. > > DT_RPATH is just as useful as it always was for testing purposes, when > you're building binaries against a sysroot and use -rpath and > -dynamic-linker pointing to that sysroot, and you really do want the RPATH > used at runtime to find both direct and indirect dependencies and > DT_RUNPATH would *not* serve the same purpose (because the sysroot is > intended to have exactly the same binaries that would eventually be used > in the root filesystem of the target in production, it would not be > appropriate to set DT_RUNPATH in any of those binaries). Hi Joseph! Then I guess we must undeprecate it. I'm fine with that, as long as the maintainers of ld(1) agree. Joachim, would you mind sending a patch, and CC binutils? I'll leave it a week or two to gather reviews, and if nobody opposes, I'll merge it. I can also prepare the patch, if you prefer. Have a lovely day! Alex > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > josmyers@xxxxxxxxxx > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
