From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 17 08:37:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16838 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:37:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ics.com (ics.com [140.186.40.192]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA16828 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:37:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kaleb@ics.com) Received: from ics.com (sunoco.ics.com [140.186.40.142]) by ics.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id LAA05320; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:37:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36793354.26B665ED@ics.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:37:40 -0500 From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Organization: Integrated Computer Solutions X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: devel@xfree86.org CC: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: _Xsetlocale References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "H.J. Lu" wrote: > > > > > This is (just one reason) why ld.so.cache is just a bad idea. > > That is your opinion. Up yours too. It's an opinion based on years of developing software on a variety of operating systems. I don't live in a one-OS world as you seem to do. I routinely look at how things work on other systems, and I know what works and I know what doesn't work. And after five years of developing on Linux I've seen this same problem over and over and over again -- the ld.so.cache causes more problems than it solves. > Everything should be if egcs 1.1.1 is used on Linux. Everything should be what??? Everything should be okay? Should we all hop in our time machines and jump forward to a point in time to when this is a fact, instead of just wishful thinking. In the mean time there are real people with real machines running what's out there today -- and it ain't egcs-1.1.1. Clicking your ruby shoes and saying "everything will be fine with egcs" isn't doing much to help those people NOW! (Telling people they should recompile XFree86 from source is hardly a viable solution either.) Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on how a different compiler will change link and ld.so semantics? > I can help if there is any problem. > > > > > What would it take to get the boneheads who do the linux distributions > > to take /usr/X11R6/lib out of their ldconfig? XFree86 binaries have > > RPATH and NEEDEDs, so they don't need no steenking ld.so.cache. > > > > /usr/X11R6/lib in ld.so.conf is not the problem. An opinion? > gcc 2.[78].x is. How is that? -- Kaleb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message