[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#72140: Setting up libraries too slow

On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> > Nope, this involves manual action by root.

> Which is bad why?

Again, think of the lab environment, where software is installed in a
central location for all machines. If root had to call ldconfig manually,
he/she/it would have to do that on every machine everytime someone
installs a library, which is a time-consuming task if you have 200+

> > Well, this is the way a cache is supposed to work: It speeds up things,
> > but it doesn't get in the way of normal operation.

> Right, so not having the dynamic linker update it doesn't hurt at all.

It is okay except for the case where one library should replace
another. As the cache tells us where to look, the loader will not notice
that there is another library in the path before the one it found.

> > Imagine I had to tell my http proxy that it should check whether the
> > documents it serves are still up to date.

> For some webservers this is indeed needed.

Yes, but that is no excuse for the proxy not to ask whether the document
has changed.

> > drwxrwsr-t  47 root   dist     1536 Jul 26 22:39 /usr/local/dist/DIR/

> I do hope not all users are in that dist group..

Nope, but quite a few are.

> > It is supposed to update its cache if it is outdated IMO.

> Point me to any standards doc that says a dynamic linker should do
> anything more then dynamic linking..

Keeping a cache isn't required, that's for sure, but *if* you are caching
things, you should do that transparently.


PGP public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc
 Fingerprint: 10 62 F6 F5 C0 5D 9E D8  47 05 1B 8A 22 E5 4E C1
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Reply to: