Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 01:37:03 +0200 From: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/libexec/rtld-elf rtld.c Message-ID: <19990503013703.A280@broccoli.no-support.loc> In-Reply-To: <372BE410.87C7D5C7@newsguy.com>; from Daniel C. Sobral on Sun, May 02, 1999 at 02:35:12PM %2B0900 References: <XFMail.990501105137.jdp@polstra.com> <372BE410.87C7D5C7@newsguy.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 02:35:12PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > John Polstra wrote: > > > > What do you think? In your opinion (totally unbiased, of course), > > does this argument hold water? > > John, remember the initial complain message? "I have used X, Y and > Z, and I *hated* the way .RPATH worked." Moment, please. I have to set this right. First of all Solaris violates the spec, too: First LD_LIBRARY_PATH, then RPATH. I have seen this weird search order (RPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH) *only* in DEC OSF/1 and IRIX up till now. I complained about it and was told: "It conforms to the ELF spec." -- Oh. > Need I say more? Well, I will, just in case. :-) There is very > little that could be worse than breaking a standard that *is* used > by other Unixes. You initial suggestion would add a variable used > only by FreeBSD, yes, and it would *MAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY* not only > with the standard, but with other OSes. Think how much people will > hate you if you try to reverse the search path. :-) Oh no, we de-reverse it. The search path in the spec is reversed. ;-) Anyway, what do you think one has to change? If there's some .RPATH in the dynamic section, the maintainer seems to know what he's doing and he won't use LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but for hacking and testing. If not it won't hurt at all. Could you sketch an example for a situation that demonstrates the usefulness of a RPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH search order? All Unices (including FreeBSD) that use ELF added non-standard enhancements to the spec. Therefore incompatibility is just there. The ELF spec is neither complete nor fully worked out. E.g. library versioning is not covered at all: Every manufactor invented his own wheel. We can't maintain compatibility to other OSes here, since every manufactor interpretes the ELF spec individually. There is very little that could be worse than breaking a standard: Following that standard blindly because two other Unices do. Björn -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d--(+) s++: a- C+++(-) UB++++OSI++++$ P+++(-) L+++(--) !E W- N+ o>+ K- !w !O !M !V PS++ PE- PGP++ t+++ !5 X++ tv- b+++ D++ G e+ h-- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990503013703.A280>