Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15250.1273153122@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Greg Stark wrote >> We only set RPATH if the install location isn't part of the default ld >> library path specified by /etc/ld.so.conf right? Setting it if it is >> in the default path would be antisocial. > How are we going to know at build time what is in the ld.soconf of the > installation machine? Exactly. In practice, it's on the packager's head to specify --disable-rpath if he intends to install into the platform's regular library search path. Funny point here: in the Fedora/RHEL RPMs, I use --disable-rpath because "don't use RPATH" is part of the standard packaging guidelines for that platform. However, pl/perl has to double back and use rpath anyway because libperl.so doesn't exist in the ldconfig path; it's in some version-numbered directory and they don't provide any link or ldconfig entry so you could find it otherwise. Annoying as heck. I've always wondered how many other packagers have to carry patches similar to http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/postgresql/devel/postgresql-perl-rpath.patch regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: