Re: DESTDIR install on hppa-hpux

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Michael Haubenwallner wrote on Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:35:11PM CEST:
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 20:54 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 
> > > The most important part of the fix is already suggested in comments
> > > around 'hardcode_minus_L=yes', as the encoded library path is used as
> > > fallback location for a specific library when runpath lookup fails.
> > > As this isn't really 'hardcoding' in libtool's sense, hardcode_minus_L
> > > can safely be set to 'no' IMO, opening the door for DESTDIR support.
> > 
> > Hmm.  This does open a small security issue, no?  Imagine the following
> > setup: user joe compiles some package, then uses 'sudo make install' to
> > install it in a system location.  First issue: the path to the
> > compilation location is revealed in the installed libraries and programs
> > which have dependencies to newly-installed libraries.  Second, if those
> > deplibs are removed for whatever reason, then the runtime linker will
> > search in joe's build tree for the shared libraries.  This may not be
> > likely to happen, but it's something to think about.
> 
> I've thought about this too, but how would the link command have to look
> like to avoid this issue?

I don't know.  That's precisely the reason we haven't gone this way
before.

> > > Another minor one was that there is no need to pass
> > > "+b $install_libdir", as the linker ignores subsequent "+b" values.
> > 
> > Erm, libtool has code to merge multiple run path values (and to let
> > ltmain know that this needs to be done).  Weren't semantics on HP-UX
> > that way that, if +b was not used, then the linked path with -L is
> > searched too?  That would be bad then.
> 
> This is done anyway using $hardcode_libdir_flag_spec.
> Leaving "+b $install_libdir" in $archive_cmds would ignore the
> subsequent collected "+b $libdir".

Oh.  So I guess this would be an independent fix anyway?

> > > arch  HP-UX bits * compiler
> > > ------------------------------
> 
> > What does this table mean?  That for each of the combinations, the
> > libtool testsuite was run,
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> >  and there were no failures?
> 
> Well, there weren't _no_ failures, but the same failures compared to
> vanilla git/master, except for the 12 tests changing from SKIP or XFAIL
> to PASS (see above).

Cool.  Thank you.

Cheers,
Ralf