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: 2008-10-26 07:26:47

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> To what degree should Boost.Build "fix" the user's environment?
>>
>> My take is that the cure is worse than the disease, and should
>> be removed.
>>
>> Vladimir: is this solving a real problem, or a theoretical one?
>
> I believe the issue was that Martin was running tests with zillion
> versions of gcc at the same time. Then, when running any given test
> binary, you better point it at the lib dirs of the right compiler.
> Global LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not going to work -- as you have 5 different
> compilers, some of them using same sonames for libraries.

Alright but this is still a very bad idea (I'm not even sure that test
above is exactly valid, i.e. "at the same time?").  As Steven and many
others have mentioned LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for extra libraries and bjam
is REALLY going to rely on rtld than it can't feed it a bogus path by
default.  I'm all for making this tunable so the user can add things
to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH (or some feature trigger this based on os type,
etc.).

But right now its broke in my book...

-aps