Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath
Дата
Msg-id 1273156679.17372.10.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On tor, 2010-05-06 at 09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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

Debian has libperl in /usr/lib, so there is no issue.  But if there
were, there is a relatively new policy that you can should use rpath if
you need a library that is installed in a nonstandard path.  (Should
actually use this new runpath thing, perhaps.)  The same new policy
prohibits packages from modifying /etc/ld.so.conf.




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs
Следующее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful