[Fedora-directory-devel] Re: RPATH status

[Richard Megginson]

David Boreham wrote:
>
> Some more info on this:
>
> FDS was designed to install at an arbitrary subdirectory in the 
> filesystem.
> rpath only supports absolute paths and paths relative to the current 
> working
> directory, not the location of the binary (some platforms have some 
> support
> for rpath relative to the main binary location but at the time this 
> was last
> looked at seriously, that support was spotty and incomplete).
> And so we have wrappers. They allow a user to add one directory
> to their path and run any FDS command without regard to setting
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
>
> To remove the wrappers you'd need to give up something :
> install at a fixed location (and use absolute rpaths); don't give
> users the convenience of running commands without setting
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH themselves; only run on platforms
> that have support for relative-to-binary rpath.
We're using the first option on Fedora.  We install all of the libraries 
in system locations, so there is no need to set rpath or have wrapper 
scripts for the command line programs.  The only one in question is 
libslapd.so, and we could put that in the system $_libdir, or some other 
directory that is "approved" by the FHS.  We were planning to get rid of 
the wrapper scripts sooner or later on Fedora.  Does this have to be 
sooner?  Are the wrapper scripts causing some problem (other than an 
aesthetic one)?

We require the use of wrapper scripts on almost every other platform, 
including RHEL4 - and, AFAIK, on other linux distros that put the NSPR 
and NSS bundled with the Mozilla clients in the system _libdir.  Fedora 
solved this problem by making NSPR and NSS independent of Mozilla.
>
>
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- 
>> Fedora-directory-devel mailing list
>> Fedora-directory-devel at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
>>  
>>
>
> -- 
> Fedora-directory-devel mailing list
> Fedora-directory-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3245 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-devel/attachments/20070312/c6459ce6/attachment.bin>