Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:24:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/libexec/rtld-elf rtld.c [RELENG_3] Message-ID: <XFMail.990429092410.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <19990429162225.A267@broccoli.no-support.loc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bjoern Fischer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 06:23:55PM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
>> jdp 1999/04/27 18:23:55 PDT
>>
>> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_3)
>> libexec/rtld-elf rtld.c
>> Log:
>> MFC 1.20 -> 1.21: Give RPATH precedence over LD_LIBRARY_PATH, as per
>> the ELF spec.
>
> I don't know if this was already discussed on current@...
No, it wasn't. I viewed it as a simple bug fix which didn't need
discussion, but I guess I was wrong about that. :-}
> Do we have to follow the ELF specification by detail? At work I'm
> administering Solaris, IRIX and DigitalUnix machines. IRIX and DEC
> both behave as described in the ELF spec. -- and we ran into several
> problems: Often when a software package with shared libraries got
> a major update we used LD_LIBRARY_PATH temporarily so that old
> binaries found the proper libs. This was a long way to go due to
> that weird RPATH/LD_LIBRARY_PATH behavior.
>
> All in all, what is LD_LIBRARY_PATH for? It's for hacking and
> testing, for quick'n'dirty solutions. For linking binaries that may
> be installed on a system and will be used for a longer time you use
> RPATH. So I think giving RPATH precedence over LD_LIBRARY_PATH is a
> bad idea, although it conforms with ELF.
I think it's important to follow the spec as much as we can. But I
agree that you're describing a real problem. Maybe we can solve
that problem in a different way that doesn't violate the ELF spec.
How about if the dynamic linker also honored a second environment
variable, say, LD_LIBRARY_PATH0 or LD_LIBRARY_PREPATH or
LD_LIBRARY_PATH_OVERRIDE. (Somebody please think of a decent name for
it!) This variable would take priority over the RPATH. So the
search order would become:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH0
RPATH in the shared object
LD_LIBRARY_PATH
ldconfig hints
/usr/lib
Would that be acceptable?
John
---
John Polstra jdp@polstra.com
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
"Self-interest is the aphrodisiac of belief." -- James V. DeLong
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990429092410.jdp>