Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:45:45 +0100 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@qualys.com> To: Ken Menzel <kenm@icarz.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in man page or ldconfig default behavoir? Message-ID: <20010207164545.A2118@nebula.cybercable.fr> In-Reply-To: <028901c0911a$ef1e6e20$711663cf@icarz.com>; from kenm@icarz.com on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:30:42AM -0500 References: <028901c0911a$ef1e6e20$711663cf@icarz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ken Menzel wrote: > Hi, > I have couple of questions regarding ldconfig. First according to > the manual in -stable > -R Rescan the previously configured directories. This opens the > previous hints file and fetches the directory list from the h= ead- > er. Any additional pathnames on the command line are also pr= o- > cessed. This is the default action when no parameters are gi= ven. This just means that 'ldconfig' called without *any* parameter will do a 'ldconfig -R'. > However try to add a new directory such as "ldconfig > /usr/local/lib/mysql" and all the other directorys go away as > evidenced by "ldconfig -r". This is the expected behaviour. Use -m to add a new directory. > However "ldconfig -R > /usr/local/lib/mysql" does add the library properly. If -R is the > default behavior why is the behavoir different with -R! Is the man > page incorrect or does ldconfig have the wrong default behavior or am > I confused? (I am confused anyway!). It works because 'ldconfig -R /usr/local/lib/mysql' will first rescan the directories for new shared libs and then add the one specified on the comma= nd line. The man page is correct, and ldconfig behaviour too :-) > Also the -v switch seems to do nothing (on BSD/OS -v shows the libs > added). Actually, after looking at the source, the -v switch only works with the old aout libs and not with ELF ones. I'll write a patch asap to correct this on= e. > Is there an advantage to not using /etc/ld.so.conf? Besides the > obvious having lots of configs in rc.conf. In FreeBSD /etc/ld.so.conf is for aout libs, elf ones uses /etc/ld-elf.so.c= onf. Dunno why these files aren't used though. > Thanks Ken Hope this helps, Maxime Henrion --=20 Don't be fooled by cheap finnish imitations ; BSD is the One True Code Key fingerprint =3D F9B6 1D5A 4963 331C 88FC CA6A AB50 1EF2 8CBE 99D6 Public Key : http://www.epita.fr/~henrio_m/ --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjqBbakACgkQq1Ae8oy+mdb1AgCfXh3BgrmcCf6vqDZGAht6mc0O mZMAnA2s/qeynT2t9Vy+UoIWK+6xDpUO =AQO1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010207164545.A2118>