douglas+list at fang.demon.co.uk
Tue Aug 22 14:00:43 UTC 2000
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Douglas Brebner <douglas+list at fang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Ian Piumarta wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, this kind of ignores an important source of headaches. Squeak
> > > is trying to use .so files in cruel and unusual ways that many Unix
> > > designers never dreamed of (even in their worst nightmares). On some
> > > platforms (including at least one of the supported ones, I might add)
> > > it is *impossible* for the loader to figure out the dynamic
> > > dependencies for the VM unless the plugins are (i) installed in a
> > > standard place that ld.so knows about; (ii) prefixed with "lib", and
> > > (iii) suffixed by ".so.<maj>.<min>". This makes the build kind of
> > > tricky, since a partial install is absolutely required at "half-time".
> > On ELF platforms, can't you use -Wl,-R/path/to/plugins to embed the library
> > search path into the executable itself?
> Regarding the location of .so files, most platforms will let you set an
> environment variable to add to the lookup path. I suggest we do this
> instead of building a link path into the executable on platforms that
> let you -- the environment variable will disappear once the build
> process is finished, but the built-in path will stay in the executable
> even after its been installed.
> On Linux, the variable to use is "LD_LIBRARY_PATH", and usage can look
> like this:
I knew about LD_LIBRARY_PATH, I just got confused about buildtime vs
runtime usage of it.
Would libtool be a better way to handle this, especially for the more
awkward platforms? Or is that just more complexity for little gain? Ian?
More information about the Squeak-dev