Re: [HACKERS] dynamic libraries

Folks,

    this   debate   is  becoming  more  and  more  a  philosophic
    discussion about "if it is right to force end  users  to  use
    -rpath  or  ld.so.conf".   I  think  it's  not the PostgreSQL
    developers teams subject to make a  decision  about  it.  And
    even if, I think we cannot make such a decision until release
    schedule of 6.4.

    PostgreSQL should be easily installable out of  the  box.  On
    systems  where  ld.so.conf  is  the defacto standard, forcing
    -rpath will be IMHO a drawback against PostgreSQL  (the  user
    already made his OS decision). If using a search path means a
    loss of performance or security, systems where  this  is  the
    standard  way  have  other  problems  than  those coming with
    PostgreSQL.

    We can clearify in the installation instructions  that  using
    ld.so.conf  requires  root  permissions  any time the library
    interface changes or LD_LIBRARY_PATH can be used  (if  a  non
    privileged user wants to play around with it).

    For 6.5 we could discuss if using ld.so.conf, LD_LIBRARY_PATH
    or -rpath could become a configure option.

    What we never should do is to be arrogant and say "PostgreSQL
    MUST  be  installed  using  the  ONE  and ONLY correct way of
    shared library usage".   This  would  only  become  a  pseudo
    argument against PostgreSQL.

    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.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #