gene.heskett at verizon.net
Sat Feb 23 05:05:09 UTC 2008
On Friday 22 February 2008, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
>> Somehow I don't feel like offering any thanks when such roadblocks are
>> strewn about. The ldconfig thing is breaking stuff just to lock us into
>> the rpm camp if we're cautious & wanna stick with distro only SW.
>> Absolutely NO mention of the new /etc/ld.so.conf.d directory, its usage
>> or the 'include' directive which is now the only line in the installed
>> /etc/ld.so.conf. I don't recall it existing in FC6. Such changes
>> should be documented where they can be found with a simple man command
>> if you want folks to be aware of them.
>I haven't seen anything wrong with ldconfig. You can add paths directly in
>ld.so.conf if you wish. Then run ldconfig as root. Or, when you build a
> package from source, you can ./configure it with the path set to /usr/
> rather than /usr/local (which is the default in many cases). Then the
> libraries go directly into /usr/lib, etc.
And IMO, that "prefix=/usr" leads down the garden path to a thoroughly hosed
system at some point because a tarball build overwrites what rpm installs,
keep them separate and miss-fires can then be fixed if one can figure it out,
by nuking the /usr/local/lib version and re-running ldconfig to re-arrange
Yes, it was easy enough to fix ld.so.conf once I grokked that it might just
accept the old syntax. But as I said, whoever added to the ld.so.conf by
moving the extra to a subdir, really should have 50 lashes with a wet
dishtowel for not also updating the man pages.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
More information about the fedora-list