Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:30:50 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks Message-ID: <47544B5A.9080903@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <20071203144159.irjelm2c0c8o8csw@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <1196470143.4750af7f6accf@webmail.rawbw.com> <4752F825.8020505@chuckr.org> <20071203144159.irjelm2c0c8o8csw@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> (from Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:23:33 > -0500): > >> You've gotten some good suggestions, but I might add one more, I don't >> think it's been mentioned. I have foound, myself in the last 2 weeks, >> some FreeBSD ports putting in Linux tools, installing stuff in the >> wrong places, like sticking in SYSV libraries in /usr/local/lib instead >> of /compat/linux/usr/lib. I verified in that case that the Linux > > If they put the libs directly in /usr/local/lib instead of > /usr/local/lib/<linux_port_specific_directory>, then it is a big error. > But if it is in a subdirectory where no FreeBSD lib resides, it is ok > (the linux browser sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the start script to the right > path). > > Have a look how the native browser works, the private libs are not in > ldconfig either and the browser start script sets the library path for > the browser binary. At least it did this the last time I checked... > Does that mean that all programs needing those libs must have wrapper shells, so as ot implement the LD_LIBRARY_PATH? I know of programs that bomb if that's even set at all, and I think it can be a security tool, and I just think that there is no good reason for installing Linux libs outside of the compat tree. There isn't any good reason not to use the compat tree, is there? You know, there's a local there too, so you don't even need to be ignoring LOCALBASE, which is something I don't care for ports to do at all. I just don't see any reason for such a obviously pathological thing to occur. Just because it's possible to fix it, program by program, by implementing wrapper scripts, you aren't going to tell me that's some sort of elegant fix, so the fact that doing such a thing is justified?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47544B5A.9080903>