On Wednesday 10 December 2003 00:40, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > From the ldconfig manpage: > > > > "Filenames must conform to the lib*.so.[0-9] pattern in order to > > be added to the hints file." > > > > I wonder if there actually are any compelling reasons to keep this > > behaviour - > > Yes there are. Not all shared libraries are meant to be seen > by ldconfig. This isn't very convincing. The reality looks much more like this: Many software packages out there assume ldconfig and workalikes to be as liberal with regards to shared library filenames as linux' ldconfig (or NetBSD's ld.elf_so) and install libraries named lib*.so.[0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+. If libtool weren't as widely used as it is for building shared libraries, this would make for a bigger problem than it is now. Packages that actually do install shared libraries which are exclusively dlloaded usually put those in a location where they won't be picked up by ldconfig, like a subdirectory in PREFIX/lib. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi_at_freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:33 UTC