[openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

[Wouter Verhelst]

On 31-05-17 17:11, PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 5/31/17 3:16 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On 30-05-17 18:12, PGNet Dev wrote:
>> [...]
>>> with lots of apps still not at all v110
>>> compatible, or at best broken in their attempts, having local builds of
>>> both v110x and v102x is extremely useful -- and RPATH'ing makes that
>>> trivially manageable.
>>
>> That's exactly my point -- you don't need to use RPATH to handle that
>> (very common) case. You just need to link against the correct .so file
>> at compile time (which can be handled by installing them in separate
>> directories and using -L to specify which one to link to); the runtime
>> dynamic linker will then find a v1.1 version of OpenSSL for applications
>> compiled against 1.1.0x, or a v1.0.2 version for applications compiled
>> against 1.0.2x. It's that simple.
>>
>> RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries aren't, for
>> whatever reason (e.g., local patches). Other than that, you don't need
>> it, 
[...example...]
>> and it's generally a bad idea.
> 
> And, IMO, that's just bad advice.  RPATH is perfectly fine, and this^ is exactly what it exists for.  Feel free to use it or not, but don't FUD perfectly legitimate functionality as a 'bad idea'.

You're quoting me out of context.

I said "Other than that, [...] it's generally a bad idea". I didn't say
"it's always a bad idea", nor did I imply that.

I also said "RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries
aren't". Your example (snipped for brevity) is an example of exactly
that. So we're in agreement?

-- 
Wouter Verhelst