From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from email.fidnet.com (ecomm1.fidnet.com [216.229.64.80]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BC141A673 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:54:29 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 9593 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2001 14:53:48 -0000 Received: from dialup-mo-36.rolla.fidnet.com (HELO silica.localmosci) (216.229.74.36) by 64.251.128.96 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 14:53:48 -0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] standards/conventions? (LDPATH, include files) From: "Tod M. Neidt" To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20011207115617.B23974@ilse.asys-h.de> References: <20011206193332.6B8581A542@chiba.3jane.net> <0GNX002LETCX3G@mxout2.netvision.net.il> <20011207115617.B23974@ilse.asys-h.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.99.0 (Preview Release) Date: 07 Dec 2001 08:54:41 -0600 Message-Id: <1007736882.848.2.camel@silica.localmosci> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 14b29f1e-f2dd-4147-98bb-4132475870f0 X-Archives-Hash: f5652b73e9c75755c6243fad6c1b686c On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 04:56, Juergen Ilse wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote: > > In Gentoo LD_LIBRARY_PATH is called simply LDPATH. > > I don't think so. LD_LIBRARY_PATH ist relevant for the shared library loader > ld.so (see also "man ld.so"). LDPATH is (as far as i know) not relevant for > ld.so. LDPATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH are IMHO totally different things (and > IMHO should LD_LIBRARY_PATH not be set to a default value). > > > Legend has it drobbins simply renamed it because he was tired of typing > > the longer version :-) > > Is it some kind of "urban legend"? ;-) > I also did a "strings /lib/ld.so | grep LD" to see, if ld.so was modified > to accept LDPATH instead of "LD_LIBRARY_PATH" and i saw no "LDPATH" in, > so the meaning of LD_LIBRARY_PATH seems not to be modified and LDPATH seems > not to "replace" LD_LIBRARY_PATH ... > > > Under /etc/env.d you will see a lot of files setting that variable. > > ... which is not the same as LD_LIBRARY_PATH ... > > > However, it doesn't actually get exported to your shell. Instead, env-update > > changes /etc/ld.so.conf to include those dirs. > > IMHO is that "the right thing" to do. > I believe LDPATH is internal to portage. Like dan said, it doesn't get exported. It's used to generate ld.so.cache. tod