1 |
On 01-10-2010 12:46:48 +0200, Al wrote: |
2 |
> The parity compiler sounds very ambitious and I am curious. On the |
3 |
> other hands I also see the advantages in Microsofts PATH approach. |
4 |
> Dynamic libraries doen't depend on a special path any more and can be |
5 |
> moved around. All you have to do, is to adapt the PATH variable to the |
6 |
> new location. That makes your programs more portable. |
7 |
|
8 |
you have a wrong perception of portable to me |
9 |
|
10 |
> What I am pondering on, is a relative RPATH, relative to the prefix |
11 |
> path. By this the Prefix installation as a whole could still be moved |
12 |
> around without breaking. You could run a precompiled PREFIX |
13 |
> installation out of different user's home directories. |
14 |
|
15 |
You simply can't, because the libraries have paths hardcoded compiled |
16 |
in. That is the whole reason why we decided to "fix" the paths where |
17 |
the libs are and should be found. It's simply not as simple as thinking |
18 |
that if the lib can be found in any place that you've solved all (if not |
19 |
any) of the problems that occur here. |
20 |
As you've found already yourself, on ELF systems, there are a couple of |
21 |
ways of finding libs in other places. However, this is mostly a |
22 |
debugging aid, and often screws up more than it solves. |
23 |
|
24 |
chpathtool exists for a reason, but still it's fragile, and won't work |
25 |
on cygwin for sure. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Fabian Groffen |
30 |
Gentoo on a different level |