Re: question about overriding ld.so.conf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 06/07/11 13:00, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I think the problem has to be fixed in the libraries themselves, this
> can be done in two ways:
> - the library not providing an os abi tag should be changed to provide
> - the library providing an (outdated) os abi tag should not be provided.
That should be obvious, but the vendors don't. :-(
I would guess if vendor B sets his os abi tag to 2.6.32, overriding
vendor A (2.4.20), then A would shout "foul".
> As a consumer, here are the things you can do:
> - Remove the os abi tag stripping the library
Highly ugly, but it works. Its a hack.
> - Removing the wrong library, or replace the wrong one by the good one
> - Use LD_LIBRARY_PATH with the path to the right library. It gets
> priority over os abi tag.
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is highly error-prone, and it affects build time, too.
I would prefer to ignore this variable unless there is really really
really no other option.
Removing the "wrong" library is not possible without either loosing
a lot of packages from the dependency chain of package A, or loosing
the enhanced functionality of package B.
Are there other options? Is the os abi tag broken beyond repair?
Any helpful comment would be highly appreciated.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----