matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au> writes:
> after discussions several months ago, it came to my attention
> that it was considered a feature that there was no elf ld.so.conf.

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.)


if you think that RPATH is the right way to go, then you think it
solves your problems and you use it -- and you never, ever need
something like ld.so.conf.

if you think that you need something like ld.so.conf, then RPATH is
only going to cause problems (in certain circumstances, namely, when
an RPATH spec is present 8-), by adding an unexpected and possibly
wrong directory to the search path. 


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.



cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.