Re: A question about RPATH

[Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>]

On 12/20/2012 11:01 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> 
> 
>>> The libs fir libiconv and GNU gettext are in /usr/local/lib and not 
>>> anywhere to be found in the system lib areas : 
>>
>> The disadvantages of RPATH are well-documented.  
> 
> Really?  Name one please. 

Certainly not.  It would be way off-topic, and it's controversial and
inflammatory.  Suffice it to say that the non-usage of RPATH is
deliberate, and has been considered at length.

>> Your problem is best solved by installing dependent libraries where
>> ld.so can find them. 
> 
> Yes and no. Again I could argue the point from the perspective of
> control and quality. If I rely upon the software from the OS
> supplier ( Red Hat, Debian, Oracle ) then I must assume that the OS
> vendor is on top of things and provides reasonably up to date
> software that addresses security and feature concerns.

Well, yes.  But that has no bearing on making ld.so aware of where
you've put your libraries.

> This is rarely the case and the trade off between stability and
> feature rich end user tools is always a tough balance. I therefore
> choose to build what I want and isolate it from the OS vendor.

Your call.

>> ldconfig can do this, but if these libraries are available as
>> standard packages that's hugely preferable.
> 
> to whom ? 

Perhaps not to you.  I'm not going to argue with you.  gcc-help is not
for such things.

If you really want to build your gcc binaries with RPATH, you can do
that.

Andrew.