On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:38:49PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:16:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: > > cool.. any chance for some syntactic sugar so me (and other > > users/vendors) wouldn't need to change any of their build scripts > > and compilation processes? > > Uh, like what? That's about as simple as you can get. > > > r~
I don't understand. Which is simpler, changing an environmental variable, or adding extra CFLAGS to every single compile and recompiling? In addition, in your --rpath example, the relative pathing is hardcoded into the executable, wheras with "*" you could modify the runtime behavior of the executable at runtime. I suppose you could change this with chrpath, but why bother? What if you want to test out two versions of relative libraries side by side? And in any case, I'm not even sure if you can change the runtime path to something longer than what currently exists in the executable using chrunpath. And finally, certain programs (glibc, for example) seem to get into to trouble (ie: not compile) when you use --rpath flags. So, what's the issue with "*"? Ed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
