On 31-05-17 17:11, PGNet Dev wrote: > On 5/31/17 3:16 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On 30-05-17 18:12, PGNet Dev wrote: >> [...] >>> with lots of apps still not at all v110 >>> compatible, or at best broken in their attempts, having local builds of >>> both v110x and v102x is extremely useful -- and RPATH'ing makes that >>> trivially manageable. >> >> That's exactly my point -- you don't need to use RPATH to handle that >> (very common) case. You just need to link against the correct .so file >> at compile time (which can be handled by installing them in separate >> directories and using -L to specify which one to link to); the runtime >> dynamic linker will then find a v1.1 version of OpenSSL for applications >> compiled against 1.1.0x, or a v1.0.2 version for applications compiled >> against 1.0.2x. It's that simple. >> >> RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries aren't, for >> whatever reason (e.g., local patches). Other than that, you don't need >> it, [...example...] >> and it's generally a bad idea. > > And, IMO, that's just bad advice. RPATH is perfectly fine, and this^ is exactly what it exists for. Feel free to use it or not, but don't FUD perfectly legitimate functionality as a 'bad idea'. You're quoting me out of context. I said "Other than that, [...] it's generally a bad idea". I didn't say "it's always a bad idea", nor did I imply that. I also said "RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries aren't". Your example (snipped for brevity) is an example of exactly that. So we're in agreement? -- Wouter Verhelst -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
