Re: Relocatable installation

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Ludovic Courtès schreef op za 29-01-2011 om 22:39 [+0100]:

Hi Ludovic,

> I’m not sure about this patch.  My feeling is that it would take more
> than this to allow Guile to be truly relocatable, e.g., all of
> $GUILE_LOAD_PATH, $GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH, $LD_LIBRARY_PATH,
> etc. would have to work.

I realised we need GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH too.  Added that
in this new patch.  I added a bit more explanation: this should
be used together with a sane -rpath $ORIGIN/../lib build.

> And some of them are hardcoded in the binary,
> as is usual with the GNU Build System.

Yes, that's why the new, argv0-based directories are prepended
to those paths.

> Furthermore, I think all these paths cannot be reliably inferred from
> argv[0].  For instance because libdir doesn’t have to be $bindir/../lib.
> It doesn’t seem to fit well in the GNU software installation process.

No, you can choose all kinds of freaky install directories.  However,
if you don't do that and use the normal, default directory structure,
this enables binary packages with guile that can be installed in
$HOME or on Windows in c:/Program Files/Whatever.

> Still I’d be glad to hear arguments for and against.  :-)

One argument for is that we've been using this in LilyPond binary
packages (for linux and windows) since 2005.

Greetings,
Jan

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl

0001-Add-dynamic-relocation-support-default-off.patch
Description: Text Data