At 11:40 AM 7/21/98 -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
>Since when?  Isn't LD_LIBRARY_PATH a fallback in case the rpath doesn't
>match a real file?  Can't ld.so.conf do the same thing - act as a "system
>wide" LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable?  (If LD_LIBRARY_PATH is ignored when a
>-rpath is set, that's Broken.  It should be a _fallback_.)

Uh, why is an ld.so.conf needed when LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the same(?) thing?

Plus, LD_LIBRARY_PATH allows for trickness when using executables that need
to be rt-linked against newer/older/different libraries. Seems better than
ld.so.conf, unless you have problems with users who insist on unsetting or
changing it and then complaining. 

Hmmmm. Might I have just answered my own question. 
--
Kevin P. Neal                          http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

'You know, I think I can hear the machine screaming from here... \
"help me! hellpp meeeee!"' - Heather Flanagan, 14:52:23 Wed Jun 10 1998