On Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 14:53, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 14:28 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
> On 10/03/2008, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 16:14 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > > On Monday, 10 March 2008 at 15:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > > > On the other hand, maybe I should be allowed to
> > > > > include an rpath in this situation because I really always want
> > > > > linked to that particular libperl.so
> > > >
> > > > This is a case where rpath usage is acceptable, imo.
> > >
> > > I wonder why libperl is not a proper library then. I see that it has no
> > > Are there any plans upstream to make it a proper library?
> > Not that I'm aware of. IMHO, this is a valid rpath exception case.
> Does this also hold for Java native packages that need libjava.so and
> its friends (which are under /usr/lib/jvm/java/.../$arch/...) ?
Maybe. I'm not a java expert at all. Might be something to keep in mind
for the folks drafting the Java guidelines.
Should we add a note to the general guidelines that exceptions to "no rpath"
rule might be possible in special cases like perl?
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org
MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"