On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >
> > > Commercial programs typically include a shell script which sets
> > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH (and other variables) in order to find the package
> > > components. While this may be fine for commercial software, it is not
> > > acceptable for free software since free software must be held to a
> > > higher standard of quality.
> >
> > And what exactly is wrong with this approach. How it it not acceptable for
> > free software. Are you trying to say that free software packages should
> > ALWAYS be compiled for a precise system setup?
>
> Yes, of course. Free software should be well integrated with the
> system rather than be applied as an afterthought. This provides a
> more solid base for dependent applications, improves performance, and
> improves usability.
>
> Note that since free software is available with full source code, it
> can be compiled to specifically match a particular system
> configuration if an appropriate binary distribuition for that system
> is not available.
I honestly don't see what the hell is wrong with using a shell script to
do this so a binary can be relocating. Many times it is a royal pain in
the ass to have to compile everything your self. There are far two many
things that can go wrong. There is absolutely no reason a precompiled binary
can't be just as integrated as a binary specifically compiled for the
system.
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
