[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RPATH status



Hans de Goede schrieb:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 09.03.2007 14:43, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:04:27 +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>>> On a x86_64 full installation there are 470 binaries with /usr/lib64
>>>> in RPATH. That looks like a lot of work to have this fixed and
>>>> maintained. Maybe a chrpath script could be used in the build process,
>>>> and remove automatically the obvious cases like /usr/lib64,
>>>> /usr/local/lib and @RPATH@ ?
>>> The right way would be to file bugs against the packages, I think.
>> The right way IMHO would be to enable the rpath checks on the buildsys,
>> so the build fails if rpath show up that are not whitelisted in the spec
>> file. Then way people notice the rpath and in most cases fix them; new
>> rpath further get noticed immediately, and we all save time as we don#t
>> have to file bugs :-) .
>> The checks are *iirc* enabled for the Extras builders. We should make
>> sure they get enabled for the new Fedora builders, too.
> rpmlint catches this, I'm sitll in favor of running rpmlint after a build,
> check the output against a whitelist of allowed output and if there is any 
> output not in the whitelist, fail the build. We would need to integrate the 
> same use of rpmlint in make <arch> from makefile.common then (or maybe first).

Sounds fine, too.

Cu
thl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]