On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 10:09 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 6 November 2010 at 14:14, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > | On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 09:01 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > On 4 November 2010 at 17:56, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > | > | It looks like the current Debian package doesn't set LD_LIBRARY_PATH at > | > | all in the slurm-llnl-slurmdbd init script. Was the addition of that to > | > | the init script in the updated package intentional? (Upstream's init > | > | script does set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, so it makes sense there). > | > > | > So I am totally confused. Does that mean there is no bug? > | > | Gennaro's proposed fix modifies two init scripts, only one of which > | previously set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. The fix for that one script is fine, > | the question was whether the change to the second script was intentional > | and appropriate (as it will lead to an extra directory being added to > | LD_LIBRARY_PATH which was not previously included). > > Thank you -- that's how I was reading the discussion to. > > But now I need a consensus recommendation as to what I should upload. As the > package was prepared by Gennaro, or with another alteration?
So far as I can see, Gennaro's modification to the second init script - as is - doesn't make sense. It adds $LIBDIR to LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but never defines LIBDIR. I'd be happy with either reverting the modification to the slurm-llnl-slurmdbd init script, or adding the definition of LIBDIR to it (bringing it closer to upstream), but doing one without the other seems wrong; it also means that if the environment happens to contain a $LIBDIR at the time the init script is called then that will end up being prepended to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH used in the script. Gennaro - which approach you take is up to you. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
