On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: > 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?
You might want to take a look at Richard's suggestion again. The string '$ORIGIN' gets hardcoded into the binary and handled by the dynamic linker. But really, RPATH is a good solution to almost no problems. -- Daniel Jacobowitz - 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/
