Chris G. Demetriou sez:
/*
 * greywolf@starwolf.com (I can teach you how to fish...) writes:
 * > ...but isn't RPATH used in conjunction with LPATH when cross-compiling?
 * 
 * What are you talking about?  Do you have any idea what RPATH is?
 * (I have no idea what LPATH is, or even that it is.)

D'oh!  I'm thinking -R/-L, which apply to RPATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH (is
that right?  Or is RPATH not even inherited at run-time...?)


 * Use of RPATH indicates that, when compiling, the final library
 * directory paths are known and can be put into the binaries.
 * i.e. something like ld.so.conf is unnecesary.
 * 
 * Use of ld.so.conf indicates that when compiling, library directory
 * paths are not known.

Ah.  In that case, I'd vote for the ld.so.conf paradigm since RPATH would
then make the resulting binaries non-portable (unless RPATH is somehow
inherited if set in the environment, and even then...).

 * So, in my opinion, technically they are not mutually exclusive, but
 * conceptually, and probably from a security/reliability perspective,
 * they are.

Hard-coded paths for libraries inside executables, unless you're talking
_system_ libraries inside _set-id_ executables, does not strike me as a
particularly brilliant idea.

 * 
 * cgd
 */





				--*greywolf;
--
Microsoft Windows NT -- "What a totally excellent discovery...NOT!"