Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:02:38 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami), mark@grondar.za, markm@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/jpeg Makefile ports/graphics/jpeg/pkg PLIST Message-ID: <199809210202.TAA08789@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:47:08 %2B0800." <199809201547.XAA25840@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hey guys, did you know about -h and -R instead of all this -Wl crap?
> :-)
Er ... no. :-}
> And that reminds me.. The RPATH of the libraries is not being
> correctly incorporated into the headers of the calling executable.
>
> Given a libfoo.so like the one above with RPATH "/tmp/foo" encoded
> in it, a "cc -o x x.c -L. -lfoo" should (IMHO) result in the new
> binary ("x") having a reference to /tmp/foo in it's own RPATH
> automatically.
No, I don't think that's correct. The RPATH is only supposed to
apply to the library's own dependencies.
> This means you should never need an elf $LD_LIBRARY_PATH or ldconfig
> -elf as all your binaries have hints (from the libraries themselves)
> where to look, even if the libraries are in wierd places like the
> modula-3 runtime libs are (for cvsup).
You get that anyway, though. The executable's RPATH is used to find
its libraries. If those libraries depend on other libraries, then
their own RPATHs are used to find the needed libraries. And so on, to
an arbitrary depth. It's correct as it stands currently.
John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809210202.TAA08789>