Re: [gentoo-dev] standards/conventions? (LDPATH, include files)

[Juergen Ilse <juergen@ilse.asys-h.de>]

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.

> So if you app is well written just let it think LD_LIBRARY_PATH is empty and 
> that everything is ni standard dirs - it is. Is that approach problematic?
 
No.

ciao,
	Juergen Ilse					(ilse@asys-h.de)
-- 
Wenn ich auch nur aus jedem 1000. Bug in einem M$ Produkt|Juergen Ilse
einen Tag trauern wollte, also da muesste ich 300 Jahre  |Internet POP Hannover
alt werden und wuerde mehrere Dutzend schwarze Anzuege   |Vahrenwalder Str. 205
aufbrauchen. (Detlef Bosau in dcoulm)                    |30165 Hannover