On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:34:17PM +0100, Gian Filippo Pinzari wrote: >David Dawes wrote: >> I don't have any objections to doing this on Linux. As I said, we >> already do it on a range of other platforms and I'm not sure why >> Linux is something of an exception in this regard. Does anyone >> have a good reason to not do this? > >In NX we use alternate versions of libX11, libXext and libXrender. >This is done in a way that doesn't interfere with the existing X >client environment, by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH and, sometimes, >LD_PRELOAD, before running the involved application. Probably the >same applies to other systems built on top of X11. The use of >-rpath is not going to compromise this possibility and I would >consider this OK. Anyway, as a rule of thumb, I would prefer a >system where the only libraries that are used are those listed in >ld.so.conf. A specific application could still override the system >settings. Such application might wish to do so in order to >coexist with an alternate setup (think at two different versions >of KDE or GNOME installed on the same computer). Having applications >defaulting to a hardcoded library path could be a nightmare. I >would really prefer to deal with a program failing with an unre- >solved symbol instead of one dumping its core in the background >for no apparent reason.
So long as ld.so.conf overrides the rpath (does it?) then this won't matter. LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD won't work for setuid apps. I'd be happy to make the change for 4.4 if there is some concensus that it isn't a bad thing to do, and providing that ld.so.conf provides a mechanism for overriding the rpath. David -- David Dawes X-Oz Technologies www.XFree86.org/~dawes www.x-oz.com _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
