--- On Tue, 26/1/10, Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org> wrote: > Michael Ost <m...@museresearch.com> > writes: > > > I agree. And that's what your patch does, right? Would > you like to > > submit it to the wine-patches list? I think the case > for it is strong, > > especially since (1) you found that it fixes a > behavior change in > > WINEDLLPATH from November 2006 --- arguably a > regression; and (2) it > > works in the same way that LD_LIBRARY_PATH works, > which is what Linux > > programmers would expect. > > Actually the current way is precisely what LD_LIBRARY_PATH > does for > relocatable installs. The loader first looks in the rpath > $ORIGIN path, > then in LD_LIBRARY_PATH, then in system directories. Wine > does exactly > the same thing.
I suppose that's the intention of specifying rpath (and that change back in feb 2006?) - some are security-conscious and wish built-in bits not to be overridable. I agree most uses of LD_LIBRARY_PATH are fairly ugly hacks, and if it is needed somebody is probably doing something wrong. (on the issue with ddiwrapper - supposedly its use of WINEDLLPATH shouldn't be needed if wine's gdi32 and friends have a more complete implementations of DIB, the *Eng* routines, I think... so it is band-aiding over an issue, but it is a band-aid useful to some people, alright).