Subject: Re: patch to allow /etc/ld.so.conf configure directories for ELF
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ask Dr. Stupid <email@example.com>
Date: 03/11/1999 11:29:42
Chris G. Demetriou sez:
* firstname.lastname@example.org (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.
Microsoft Windows NT -- "What a totally excellent discovery...NOT!"