On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > Doesn't either setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH (or the equivalent variable for
> > your particular system) or adding the weird location to /etc/ld.so.conf
> > (or the equivalent file for your particular system) generally solve the
> > problem?
>
> Try supporting this for 5000 users of your installed program across
> 5000 workstations/PCs. This approach fails miserably. Besides the
> effort to get your users to use the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH, there is the
> problem with conflicts between similarly named libraries.
>
> The LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable was intended for developers, and it
> should be treated as such.
What about supporting relocatable binaries with shared libraries in the
same directory as the binary on some other path relative to the binary.
This is found in many commercial programs.
> > I don't see why manually infusing the location of the library is really
> > necessary. Wouldn't manually infusing the location of the library into
> > executables cause problems if the libraries are ever moved? It would
> > seam to me that it will also make an executable extremely non portable across
> > multiple sytems....
>
> Systems which want to copy binaries around should agree on standard
> library locations and naming conventions. Otherwise, there is always
> compilation from source.
Then the rpath nonsense would not be needed as they are located in a
standard place...
----
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
