--- On Tue, 26/1/10, Alexandre Julliard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Ost <[email protected]>
> writes:
>
> > I agree. And that's what your patch does, right? Would
> you like to
> > submit it to the wine-patches list? I think the case
> for it is strong,
> > especially since (1) you found that it fixes a
> behavior change in
> > WINEDLLPATH from November 2006 --- arguably a
> regression; and (2) it
> > works in the same way that LD_LIBRARY_PATH works,
> which is what Linux
> > programmers would expect.
>
> Actually the current way is precisely what LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> does for
> relocatable installs. The loader first looks in the rpath
> $ORIGIN path,
> then in LD_LIBRARY_PATH, then in system directories. Wine
> does exactly
> the same thing.
I suppose that's the intention of specifying rpath (and that change back in feb
2006?) - some are security-conscious and wish built-in bits not to be
overridable. I agree most uses of LD_LIBRARY_PATH are fairly ugly hacks, and if
it is needed somebody is probably doing something wrong.
(on the issue with ddiwrapper - supposedly its use of WINEDLLPATH shouldn't be
needed if wine's gdi32 and friends have a more complete implementations of DIB,
the *Eng* routines, I think... so it is band-aiding over an issue, but it is a
band-aid useful to some people, alright).
