Re: [HACKERS] dynamic libraries

> >     Let's  all calm down and release. There are end users waiting
> >     for the capabilities of 6.4. They don't care  about  how  the
> >     shared libs are used as long as it's easy to use them.
>
> Don't panic Jan! I took up the discussion because Matthew seemed to have
> strong opinions on a subject that afaik is not an issue really. So I was
> hoping to learn more about the fine points, and I think I have.
>
> It looks like there may be pros and cons to each method, but for me the
> "old style" of using ld.conf.so allows some independence between apps
> and library location that -rpath/-R may not.
>
> I would expect that, as Jan suggests, it is best to leave the choice to
> the installer.
>
> Anyway, if Matthew wants to write up the way one would put an entry for
> LDFLAGS or LDFLAGS_SO or ?? in a Makefile.custom to get the behavior he
> is advocating I would be happy to include it in the Admin/installation
> docs as an installation tip or alternative.

Frankly, I think the environment variable LD_RUN_PATH is the only way to
go(see man ld.so).  Setting the flag on every link, and for user apps
too, seems too painful for regular use.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026