I disagree -- as long as there is a demonstrated need for the newer library and Dell's reply earlier implied there was - though I find it a bit hard to believe.
Many packages worth this way -- using RPATH and/or LD_LIBRARY_PATH -- especially for older systems like RHEL6 when they need newer versions of libs. The google-chrome package comes to mind as something that does this the RIGHT WAY. The use of ld.so.conf.d for libz.so.1 is definitely the WRONG WAY I will say as a sysadmin that many project devs seem to just use newest versions of libs in their apps just "because they can" with out an real need and thus agrevate sysadmins supporting older OSes like RHEL6 for no good reason. Very much a pet peeve of mine. -- Paul Raines (http://help.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu) On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 2:38pm, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Dockendorf, Trey <[email protected]> said: >> Using RPATH is a simple solution to this problem. > > Really, that shouldn't be done either. If you are building an RPM for a > version of RHEL, you should use system-provided libraries where > available. There's no reason for Dell to even ship an libz.so.1. > -- > Chris Adams <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-PowerEdge mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge > > > The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail. _______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge
