Christian Schwarz writes:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, David Engel wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I suggest we modify libtool for Debian to not use -rpath. Comments?
>
> Yes, I think this would be good.
>
> I don't know the `-rpath' option of ld much, so please correct me if I'm
> wrong. Is it true that we don't need this option at all? If so, we should
> probably make it policy that _no_ package uses this option.
I don't know if it has any advantages, but using -rpath breaks
libtool's own system of wrapper scripts allowing to run binaries
linked against uninstalled libs. I had problems with that and plan to
send a bug report for this.
Here is the lines I added to my configure.in (after call to
AM_PROG_LIBTOOL) to automagically fix the `libtool' script:
=====
# Turn around -rpath problem with libtool 1.0c
# This define should be improbable enough to not conflict with anything
case ${host} in
*-pc-linux-gnu)
AC_MSG_RESULT([Fixing libtool for -rpath problems.])
sed < libtool > libtool-2 \
's/^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec.*$/hardcode_libdir_flag_spec="
-D__FOO_132_BUZZ_191_BAR__ "/'
mv libtool-2 libtool
chmod 755 libtool
;;
esac
=====
This just causes libtool to replace the -rpath setting by a inofensive
define, and everthing seems to work well. My piece of code may surely
be improved though.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 |
-----------------------------------------
A computer engineer's looking for a job !
-----------------------------------------
