Re: [Boost-build] gcc.jam weirdness (was: Boost-1.36.0 FreeBSD patches for review)

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] gcc.jam weirdness (was: Boost-1.36.0 FreeBSD patches for review)
From: Alexander Sack (pisymbol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-25 08:34:33

> 2) The default even on Linux and gcc's rtld is /lib as you can see
>> above.  Putting it in /lib is not wrong in my book but it may not
>> achieve what this line is really looking for (well get to that in a
>> sec)
>
> Yes: the run-time loader searches /lib, /usr/lib, and the like.  Since
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for *NONSTANDARD* locations, you *do* *not* put
> /lib into it.

Well then why are we setting it up in the first place?

> In general, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is empty; it is mainly useful to kludge
> around a poorly-set up system.  For example, if someone installs
> shared libs in /some/weird/place that isn't placed into ld.so.cache by
> the admin.

Agreed.

>> When you set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to search
>> /usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64 what occurs is rtld picks up the
>> version for /usr/lib32 SINCE there exists the major number version of
>> say libutil.so.5 and barfs.
>
> Sure; my propsal is NOT to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable at all.  The
> system will do the right thing.

Fine, this makes perfect sense to me.  I think though this might
effect cross compiling, not sure.  In general though I completely
agree with you - gcc.jam should not be setting up LD_LIBRARY_PATH
unless the user specifies some option.

-aps