On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, I can teach you how to fish... wrote:

: ...and isn't ld.so.conf useful during a standard compile?

Not if you use RPATH as part of a `standard' compile, which is what the ELF
ABI tells you to do.

On 11 Mar 1999, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

: If this road is going to be chosen, it probably makes sense to rip all
: uses/support for the RPATH linker information out of our ELF bits.
: (i.e. don't use it when building X11 or package binaries, and rip
: support for it out of ld.elf_so.)

Whoa.  Extremism-sarcasm mode off.  ;)

: In other words, I don't particularly care which you choose (and/or
: NetBSD chooses), as long as it's not _both_.  It doesn't make sense to
: use both.  I happened to choose RPATH when i came to this choice
: originally, because that's what most ELF systems do.

Look at the a.out linker sources for a little while and see what -R does.

We have had RPATH support on our a.out ports since shortly after 1.2 -- and
I don't see any problems with having both, now that pkgsrc supports RPATH
everywhere. In fact, my a.out systems haven't had a ld.so.conf file, despite
their posession of xsrc and pkgsrc created binaries, in almost six
months....

Yah, *I* like rpath.  Not everyone does, or cares to learn about it, and
ld.so.conf doesn't *need* to do anything, if it does not exist.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com; Bus. todd_vierling@xn.xerox.com)