Re: address@hidden: dynamic loading of native code modules]

[Andreas Rottmann]

address@hidden writes:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:33:33AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > And if we put them in some non-lib dir, do you propose that we
> > internally mangle the user's LD_LIBRARY_PATH in order to allow ldso to
> > find the libs?  Many people consider this unacceptable application
> > behavior, so that's another point that somewhat weighs in favor of
> > using the standard directories.
> 
> I'd say "follow the masses". What  do applications like Apache, Perl,
> Python etc. do? They all come with their 'private' locations for
> application specific libraries (let's call them plug-ins, since this
> seems to describe their function).
> Why is manipulation of an _applications_ LD_LIBRARY_PATH an un-
> acceptable behaviour (only applications exec'ed by guile would 
> notice this, anyway) ?
> 
I fully agree. However, I don't think manipulation of LD_LIBRARY_PATH
is even necessary, since one can compile the directory
(e.g. /usr/local/lib/guile1.7.0) into the guile interpreter/shared
lib.

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden        | address@hidden | 
address@hidden
http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62