Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:39:30 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: nwestfal@orion.csci.csusb.edu, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Building Fvwm... Message-ID: <199504261039.DAA10092@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <19211.798891511@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* ldconfig -a <dir>
*
* Adds the shared libs in dir to the search path if they're
* not already in it (in which case simply refresh old entries and
* add new ones, don't simply get bigger and bigger each time :-).
*
* If <dir> isn't specified, it has the effect of going through the
* internal path anyway and refreshing each dir as a side-effect anyway
* so you have a `refresh' command. Then the packages would just
* do a an `ldconfig -a ${PREFIX}/lib' and life would be happy!
This sounds real good. I'm a little concerned about the "order" thing
I mentioned in the previous mail (what if there is already one in a
DIFFERENT directory?) but otherwise this should work fine and is much
simpler. I'd say go for it, Jordan! :)
By the way, I have a small gripe about the way ldconfig runs. I think
the default behavior of ldconfig when there is no argument is pretty
much useless at best and destructive to some. I've got thud screwed
up so many times because some port had "ldconfig" in the post-install
target.
Now that the default search path is down to only /usr/lib, why don't
we take away the default behavior altogether? If invoked without an
argument, it should say something like "please specify directory". We
can even add a new flag to say "I know what I'm doing, run yourself on
/usr/lib, damnit" for people who really want it to run without any
directory".
I can't think of anyone who would want to run ldconfig by itself now,
and can imagine confused users (as we always are) trying "ldconfig" in
despair and totally screwing up the system.
What do you think?
Satoshi (ok, it's not really "ports" material, I'll move over to
"hackers" if the discussion continues)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504261039.DAA10092>