In the last episode (Oct 23), Alexander Sack said: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
Ever since the switch from static to dynamic-linked /bin and /sbin, some shared libraries are needed during the boot process. Those libraries live in /lib, and since there are no 32-bit binaries required to boot a 64-bit system, there is no need for a /lib32. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"