After your revert of the rpath patch, it isbroken again. Please fix it now.
For your reference where the problem rises from, bug 417169.
What is the requirement here? To enable full rpath for anything that links against Qt4 on prefix?
On prefix we have no control over ld.so.conf thats why any setting of LDPATH doesn't work. All paths the clibs and libdir is directly rpath'ed. Lately QT removed the rpath setting and moved to LDPATH. This is why we need an extra rpath for qt. Same for every lib which is outside the dirs mentioned before. So adding a rpath to the qt libdir would be best. What is the optimal proceeding in cmake? My solution was, what I got from their docs.
What about the patch to the cmake-utils.eclass Index: cmake-utils.eclass =================================================================== RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass,v retrieving revision 1.79 diff -u -B -b -u -p -r1.79 cmake-utils.eclass --- cmake-utils.eclass 8 May 2012 21:27:10 -0000 1.79 +++ cmake-utils.eclass 17 Jun 2012 19:34:59 -0000 @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ enable_cmake-utils_src_configure() { SET(CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_RPATH OFF CACHE BOOL "" FORCE) SET(CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH OFF CACHE BOOL "" FORCE) SET(CMAKE_BUILD_WITH_INSTALL_RPATH TRUE CACHE BOOL "") - SET(CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH "${EPREFIX}${PREFIX}/lib;${EPREFIX}/usr/${CHOST}/lib/gcc;${EPREFIX}/usr/${CHOST}/lib;${EPREFIX}/usr/$(get_libdir);${EPREFIX}/$(get_libdir)" CACHE STRING "" FORCE) + SET(CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH "${EPREFIX}${PREFIX}/lib;${EPREFIX}/usr/${CHOST}/lib/gcc;${EPREFIX}/usr/${CHOST}/lib;${EPREFIX}/usr/$(get_libdir);${EPREFIX}/$(get_libdir);${EXTENDED_RPATH}" CACHE STRING "" FORCE) SET(CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH_USE_LINK_PATH TRUE CACHE BOOL "" FORCE) SET(CMAKE_INSTALL_NAME_DIR "${EPREFIX}${PREFIX}/lib" CACHE STRING "" FORCE) Minimal invasive and good enough for prefix handling.
I wonder why we set up RPATH explicitly at all - CMake should be able to figure it out. And Qt4 on prefix is installed with RPATH so this - in CMake case at least - should propagate to anything linkning against it. I will have to take a look.
Thanks for helping here. If you need additional informations or testing, I will help.
Is this fixed?
(In reply to comment #7) > Is this fixed? Seems yes. If not please reopen.