On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:36:36AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:57:28AM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > > 2) we could try to use the ldconfig cache to make to work of ldd for
> > > ourself.
> > > Questions: - Is this really an advantage? Or has the cache the same
> > > problems ldd has?
>
> Hmm. In theory, ldconfig shouldn't require the ability to execute 64-bit
> binaries in order to build a cache of their paths. The only thing I don't
> know is how 64-bit vs. 32-bit libs are cached? It would after all have to
> be possible to distinguish between them in order to use the cache for this.
It is possible:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /sbin/ldconfig -p | grep libbz2.so.1.0
libbz2.so.1.0 (libc6,x86-64) => /usr/lib64/libbz2.so.1.0
libbz2.so.1.0 (libc6) => /lib/libbz2.so.1.0
Might still be a mess to parse all those architecture specific names,
though...
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
