Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:24:18 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, hans@brandinnovators.com Subject: Re: Heads up and and a call for a show of hands. Message-ID: <19970711092418.17324@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <1011.868634163@time.cdrom.com>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 08:16:03AM -0700 References: <1011.868634163@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan K. Hubbard scribbled this message on Jul 11: > 2. An /etc/ld.so.conf file which overrides our current "peek around > and add" ldconfig path code in rc - if you have an /etc/ld.so.conf > file, it's assumed to contain all the ldconfig path info. why not make a /etc/ld.so.conf that overrides, and then do a /usr/local/etc/ld.so.conf that adds to the list... that way we stay within our current, "don't touch /etc, touch /usr/local" mind set that we seem to be following... > Now this is generally a good thing from the vendor's standpoint (and > it was, in fact, Xi Graphics, Inc. who first requested it) since they > don't have to messily edit the /etc/rc file, they can just tack their > own lib paths onto the end of /etc/ld.so.conf. The question which is > now raised in my mind, however, is a simple one: if we do what I say above, then they can add in /usr/local/etc/ld.so.conf and they don't even touch the base system.. nice for trying to get to a read-only root... > On the other hand, making it an override also means that the minute > you "buy in" to /etc/ld.so.conf, you have to buy in all the way. An > automated installation can't simply create ld.so.conf and start > appending custom paths to it, it has to first detect that it's not > there on a user's system and populate it with a sensible initial path, > the most up-to-date value for "sensible" being pretty much whatever's > auto-detected by default in the no-etc-ld.so.conf clause of /etc/rc. see above, basicly start out /etc/ld.so.conf with just the first or possibly both: /usr/lib /usr/X11R6/lib then you have in /usr/local/etc/ld.so.conf: /usr/local/lib of course it may be argued that /usr/local/lib should be added to the base ld.so.conf... but if there aren't any ports/packages that have installed libs, it would be a "wasted" dir to check... it isn't hard to make sure that a dir is in the file (like /usr/local/lib) so that ports installing libs can auto add themselves to the file... this will also help for ports that want to install the libs someplace other than /usr/local/lib (Modula-3 comes to mind)... this will also make the bsd.port.mk a little more bloated though... but the code would be straight forward... > What do folks here think? Right now the behavior is "override", but > since we're not using it yet, it's still a reasonable time to change > that if necessary. :-) sounds like a good addition the FreeBSD's easy of configurablity... ttyl.. -- John-Mark Gurney Modem/FAX: +1 541 683 6954 Cu Networking Live in Peace, destroy Micro$oft, support free software, run FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970711092418.17324>