Michael Jennings wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > That's nonsense. "rpath" is simply an additional library search path > which is encoded into the library itself. Nothing is required to be > in an rpath directory; in fact, it needn't even exist. Unfortunately rpash is not an additional library path (implying that it is only searched if not found in the standard places) but rather a preferred priority location that is searched first. I will avoid enumerating the ways this has broken me in the past. > Like most any other feature, it's not the feature that's bad, but > rather the abuses of the feature. It is hard not to agree with that statement. A feature so powerful it can only be used for ultimate good or ultimate evil. However I have never seen it used for good yet. > > In fact you can only really test it by installing it! Better to > > avoid it and simply install your libraries a) either in standard > > places b) into places configured by ld.so.conf or c) found with > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > The only difference between rpath and LD_LIBRARY_PATH is that the > former is in the library while the latter is in the environment. They > do the same thing. They have different search priorities. If rpath were last I would have less objections. The problem is that people tend to use rpath to install libraries in non-standard locations. Of course if they were installing in standard locations then rpath would not be needed. The installed location is preferred by rpath. Therefore the only way to test is to install it. Or I suppose make sure it is not installed at all. > The entity that causes library relocation problems is not rpath, but > rather libtool .la files. These files hard-code the locations of > other .la files for other libraries such that, if the .so.* library is > installed but the .la file isn't, linking fails. *That* is the real > problem, not rpath. I agree those are also bad. But trying to classify them by rank asking how bad each is then I don't know. They are both bad and I would like to see both avoided. Besides, isn't that just a feature and as such is not bad by itself as you pointed out earlier? Isn't it rather the abuse of that feature that is bad? :-) Sorry, I could not resist. Bob _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
