On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 9/24/2010 11:12 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > > > I guess I'm also missing the bigger picture, but: > > > > - at first sight it sounds very reasonable to provide the LD_LIBRARY_PATH > as well > > > > - it might result in problems, if the binary to start uses system libs, > which exist in > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH and in system default locations in incompatible versions. > IMHO this is > > more a theoretical problem. E.g. the apr libs are versioned via the > soname such that the > > runtime linker won't link against a wrong version. > > But these same problems would be true at the shell, prior to invoking > httpd, no? > httpd could pick up library paths from the shell, but it could also pick up paths from bin/envvars; the latter is specifically tailored for dependencies bundled+built with httpd (and same ABI/debug-ability/etc.); for the slim cases where those defs are not irrelevant for the normal CGI/FastCGI, I dunno whether it would be good or bad more often This could be discussed purely in terms of features we already have: Do admins find 'SetEnv LD_LIBRARY_PATH foo' or 'PassEnv LD_LIBRARY_PATH' to solve their problem most often? How often is it problematic to use 'PassEnv LD_LIBRARY_PATH'?
