On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Bertho Stultiens wrote:
> The EXTRA_LD_LIBRARY_PATH was never intended to work with builtin dlls.
> Note that there also is a naming difference between builtins and
> elfdlls: libwhatever.so and whatever.so. This is introduced to prevent
> the elfdll library from being used in elf-style linking (during
> compiler-time; using non-hack-ish commandlines).
Well, if Alexandre used that facility, he probably has an evolution plan,
and that you don't agree with his plan is something you'd better take up
with him, not me, who's just trying to make his way work like it's
supposed to for users in the meantime.
> The builtin dlls are *pure* ELF-libraries. For these all the normal ELF
> rules apply. Thus, when you use ELF-style linking (i.e. explicit
> linking), then you *must* use ELF-style loader features (i.e.
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ld.so.conf). There is no other "Right Way" because
> the underlying operating system does not support it otherwise. Using
> RTLD_LAZY and "hope that the dependency gets loaded" (i.e. implicit
> linking) is basically a bad hack and preprogrammed problems (e.g. the
> program just aborts).
I disagree. It's a fully functional evolutionary stopgap solution, and
there's no hope involved (just .spec files) - it just unconditionally
works, and you of all people should understand why.
