<snip> >> >> > > My intention with the suggestion was that the actual library be stored > in /usr/lib64/liblua52.so (or whatever the appropriate name is), but a > symlink used for linking be stored in /usr/lib64/lua5.2/liblua.so. When > you pass "-L /usr/lib64/lua5.2 -llua" to the compiler, it will find the > file /usr/lib64/lua5.2/liblua.so and read the DT_SONAME entry in it. > That will cause the linker to store "liblua52.so" as a DT_NEEDED entry > in the executable. At runtime, the runtime linker ld.so > (/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) will read the DT_NEEDED entry, and try to > find the library liblua52.so, which is in /usr/lib64, so it will be > found without any ld.so.conf tricks. This requires no special runtime > support, as the actual name the compiler/linker will end up storing in > the output contains the proper version. This means that if > /usr/bin/binA linked to liblua51.so (via the linker finding > /usr/lib64/lua5.1/liblua.so) and /usr/bin/binB linked to liblua52.so > (likewise), they would both be able to find the correct libraries, as > the DT_SONAMEs are different. > > Jonathan Callen >
Yes, this sounds doable and should work! Aisha
