[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [scl.org] SCL packages and linker paths

On 07/29/2015 01:50 AM, Will Yardley wrote:
> That may be the "easiest" way, but doesn't seem very clean. It would be
> much better if they're built in such a way that tools can use
> /path/to/foo in the shebang line. Since virtually everything except the
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH are compiled in, seems like the solution above would
> allow this to work.

I'd managed to avoid learning about RPATH before reading Noah's post,
but a web search found me http://blog.tremily.us/posts/rpath/ which
seems to offer a decent summary of the current state of affairs.

In the case of SCLs, I think the standard arguments against using RPATH
aren't applicable - we *don't* support relocating the prebuilt binaries
to a different filesystem path, so I think it's OK to say that if you
want to move them somewhere else, you need to rebuild them rather than
just copying them.

If someone wants binaries they can copy around freely and rely on
runtime LD_LIBRARY_PATH modifications to find dependencies, then they
could still make a normal build rather than an SCL.


Nick Coghlan
Fedora Environments & Stacks
Red Hat Developer Experience, Brisbane

Software Development Workflow Designer & Process Architect

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]