On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:23:29PM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:49:07PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > I've been meaning to bring this up for a while: > > Why on earth was this change ever made? > > I can't speak for whoever made the change, but I suspect that it is > because LD_LIBRARY_PATH can be used to support libraries in /usr/local/lib > for programs in /usr/local/bin without messing up anything that ships with > Debian. Otherwise, there exists the possibility that the wrong library > will be used. This is especially of concern for developers, who may be > putting things in /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/lib to test before > releasing a package. We would not want their local libraries to be linked > in official Debian packages. That doesn't seem like an elegant explanation. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a script to make sure that a Debian package hasn't got links to whacky non-standard libraries? The current behaviour is rather non-intuitive, and, as Greg said, lots of sysadmins will change it (after wasting time trying to find out what's going on). > > In any event, looking in bugs.debian.org for the old bug that this change > closed might give you more info than this rough guess. > The bug isn't there anymore. Does anyone remember what it was? -- |> |= -+- |= |> | |- | |- |\ Peter Eckersley (pde@cs.mu.oz.au) http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde for techno-leftie inspiration, take a look at http://www.computerbank.org.au/
Attachment:
pgpzwrf3MyBQM.pgp
Description: PGP signature