On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 01:38:58AM +0100, Lars Viklund wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:29:23PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I've been thinking about this. The only reason why rpath is needed is
> > because the .so files are being stuck in lib/ghc-$version/ instead of
> > going into lib/ directly. However, I can't see a good reason for doing
> > this. The ABI is already encoded in the soname, which rules out the
> > usual reason for this sort of thing. Is there one?
> >
> > If not, the icky rpath stuff could all go away.
>
> It would still be needed for people (like me) who do not install into
> system-global directories but rather somewhere in ${HOME}, wouldn't it?
>
> Heck, I've got systems where not even /usr/local/lib is in relevant
> lookup paths.
Yes. It would just be downgraded to a build-time option, so vendors
(who tend to get things messed up by rpath) could ship it disabled,
while builds like this would still use it - but with a single rpath
entry, rather than dozens of directories.
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
