I believe the thought was for when we *can't* modify things like /usr/bin, because the user isn't an administrator. Obviously if we were installing things where they were supposed to go, we wouldn't have a problem finding libraries, would we now? So no-one's proposing we dump a bunch of libraries into /usr/bin.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/07/14 03:15 PM, Alex Crichton wrote: > >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not known about by many > > > > The install.sh script now recommends adding an entry to this variable > > if it detects that this is necessary, so it's not *entirely* unknown. > > This doesn't help, however, if it's considered a bad practice. > > > >> 1) Link dependencies of rustc statically to it? > > > > For plugins to work, we're required to link libstd and friends > > dynamically to rustc, so sadly we're require to link rustc itself > > dynamically. > > > >> 2) On Windows the folder of the executable is always searched for > >> dependencies. Is this the case on Linux too? Then you could just let > 'make > >> install' copy everything next to rustc. > > > > I do not believe that this is this case for linux or OSX, only for > windows. > > It's not acceptable to dump a bunch of libraries in /usr/bin or > /usr/local/bin anyway. > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
