On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:48:47 -0400 > "Alexander Sack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thanks, comments most appreciated. Damn, I was looking for someone to >> go "a ha, you can't do this because...." Alright, let me see why rtld >> on 6.1-amd64 is picking up /usr/lib32 stuff for a native 64-bit binary >> via debugging techniques. This seems very very wrong to me. I mean if >> /usr/lib is in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH and it comes before /usr/lib the >> /usr/lib32 *should* be innocuous, right? >> >> Feel free to use that last statement on my epitaph! :D >> > LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for native 64bit rtld. If you want a specific path > added for use by 32-bit ld-elf.so.1 only, use LD_32_LIBRARY_PATH. > > Said that, your problem is likely caused by the fact that there is > no /lib32, only /usr/lib32. So if 64-bit library lives in /lib, > your LD_LIBRARY_PATH will cause loader to find its 32-bit equivalent > in /usr/lib32 first. > > Try LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64 for better > results.
Yes I figured that out on my own but my question still exists, why isn't /usr/lib similar in format to /usr/lib32 though with respect to major numbers? Actually now that I re-read your paragraph I suppose this isn't such a bad idea but for some reason I believe that if you have /usr/lib before /usr/lib32 it should *just* work. -aps _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"