From: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@...>
Date: 2004-01-30T01:45:52+09:00
Subject: Extensions & rpath [was: Re: Ruby & gd]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:17:21AM +0900, Rasputin wrote:
> Martin Weber wrote:
> >(.. quotes cut ..)
> >A lacking -Wl,-R /usr/local/lib in the compilation (aka ``rpath'').
> >You shouldn't need touching your system's configuration for the
> >installation of a packet. Contact the package's author and complain
> >about the lack of using the right linker incantations :-)
> >
> > 
> >
> Agreed (my OS, NetBSD , doesnt do system library hacks like that.
> -Wl,-R /shlibdir is pretty much compulsory). But since most Linux source 
> builds aim themselves
> at /usr/local, this'll save you hours of hassle .

True. But being a NetBSD user myself, I prefer to kick all those lazy
folks who do not even know what 'rpath' is referring to [preferrably
with patches:)]. You'll probably know one of hubertf's sigs:
...because Unix is NOT only #inlude <linux.h>...

Writers of extensions should keep in mind ruby runs on more than linux.
Things like those are just sloppy programming, and should be fixed while
they show up.

So we all who find such problems (and are savvy enough) should work on
fixing that. Hence the kick the author hint :) Given that extconf based
installation, makes me wonder whether there's something broken in
general or not; I've not yet used 'raw' installation of any ruby package
(pkgsrc suffices for me) - yet if it is, should be fixed globally.

[Most linux users wouldn't even realize, most std installs have an
ld.so.conf with any directory you might ever think of being added
because most linux distributors don't know about rpath either :>]

-Martin