Hi Carmelo, On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:17:45PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > > I agree though that compatibility with [de-facto standards like] glibc > > is useful. Thus, indeed, why not let ldd do some extra stuff when this > > does not cost too much. > > which one ? printing the path is looking for ?
I meant showing the resulting library resolution, for "a combination of the binary and of the environment setup". This is in my eyes "extra stuff" but almost harmless. (though it will confuse some of the fellow system administrators: not always one is aware of a certain shell's environment, ldd will give different results in different shell instances... not providing any guarantee that the resolution will be the same as in the binary's runtime environment but looking like it pretends to... sigh...) So yes compatibility is important but this looks to me being near to bug-level-compatibility :) I do not argue for omitting this functionality, most probably somebody will be happy to get it. I am explaining my worries, nothing else. You decide (or whoever is "in charge" for uClibc). Regards, Rune _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
