[OPEN-ILS-DEV] am I close?

[Mike Rylander]

On 5/10/07, Dan Wells <dbw2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Just to answer Hennie's question about library search path.  There are
> > a couple ways to do this...  My preference is to add an entry to
> > /etc/ld.so.conf (or your specific distro's implementation of it).
> > There have also been other suggestions, and a search of the archives
> > should help here.
>
> >As a toolchain guy I want to pipe up and say that anybody using
> >LD_LIBRARY_PATH deserves to be keelhauled. (Pet peeve for a lot of reasons.)
>
> >What Don suggests here using /etc/ld.so.conf or FreeBSD's /etc/rc.conf's
> >ldconfig_paths="" is the right thing to do.
>
> I hate for anyone to get keelhauled on account of something I suggested, so I
> am hoping to understand this better ;)  On Ubuntu 7.04 at least, I verified
> beyond any doubt that running ldconfig will not link a library in a directory
> named in ld.so.conf if that library is not named lib*.  Most of the Evergreen
> libraries are named like this, a few are not.  Do you know of any flag or
> setting to make ldconfig link libraries not named lib*?  Is this true on all
> platforms?  I am guessing not, since a few people here are doing it this way.
> It was a strange issue to encounter, that's for sure.

There are two issues here.  First, we currently suggest a PREFIX that
puts libraries outside the standard linker paths, and that's simply a
deficiency of the current makefiles.  I'm fine with that changing, and
I think autotools-ification is a good time to do it.  Jeroen++

Second, and really only for explanation's sake, some .so's don't start
with lib because they are only ever dlopen'd, meaning that they'll
never be linked directly into any program or library.

So ... I guess that's all the commentary I have right now. :)

Thanks, everyone, for pitching in and working through this with us!

-- 
Mike Rylander