> > It's either this or they have to static link! This would turn it into
> > real big bloat-ware, it is very large. 5.0's installation program
> > is more complete, but you still have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH and,
> > if you want their library cached, fix up /etc/ld.so.config.
>
> There is really no difference between the two choices, though!
>
Yep.
> And from what you're writing, I would say that failing to provide a
> wrapper script to set up LD_LIBRARY_PATH is unacceptable (but
> unfortunately far too typical for most commercial Unix packages; it
> seems I always end up writing wrapper scripts to invoke them
> correctly.)
Agreed.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.2.3 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/