RPATH status

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:13 -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>   3 /usr/lib64/firefox-2.0.0.2
> > 
> > Some of them are intentional, such as the above.  It's either rpath or
> > munging LD_LIBRARY_PATH at startup if you want a working firefox.
> 
> RPATH is perfectly fine for these purposes.

Do we have a preference against wrapper scripts for munging
LD_LIBRARY_PATH (I think we should)?  

The reason I ask is that I've been looking at the Fedora DS situation
(now a package in extras), where every binary is wrapped in a shell
script to munge the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which just seems wrong to me. 

Likewise, where should a package place 'internal only' libraries, such
as libslapd for Fedora DS, and some similar libraries in an eventual
Samba4 package (to avoid bloat by static linking shared internal
functionality)?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070311/26f68da5/attachment.sig>