Re: [jamboost] Re: Boost.build gcc question

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-08 23:36:58

On 2002-01-08 at 11:18 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
>
>> >Secondly, we might want a feature that says "this particular library
>> >dependency should be hardcoded in the executable". I'm not sure whether
>that
>> >can be normalized, though: msvc has a mechanism but AFAIK it is very
>> >different. Maybe someone will correct me.
>> >
>> >Finally, we might want a feature that says, "hardcode all the
>dependencies
>> >computed in gRUN_LD_LIBRARY_PATH into the executable".
>>
>> If you are talking about hardcoding the path of a library dependency's
>> directory I don't think that will help Brian out much. That would only
>encode
>> the directory as in the build, grist dirs and all, which is not usefull
>for
>> delivery, where the program and it's files are in totally different
>places. Or
>> am I not getting it?
>
>I had the same concern as you. However, if there are dependencies on
>prebuilt libraries, their paths will get encoded into the target, and they
>might be in the right place already... it doesn't sound very compelling,
>does it?

Ah, yes, but how often does that happen? Unless one is directly depending on
"/usr/local/lib/lib(whatever)" it won't help either. It might help for
debugging, when you can just run the exe and it finds them, like the tests.
But then those paths are not something you want on a release where users can
hack your code by replacing your libs.

No, doesn't seem compelling.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]