So, I guess the scripts are a relic which made it so you didn't have to add those directories to LD_LIBRARY_PATH yourself.
Steve Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 15:16 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:On a Linux system, would it be possible to build Fedora DS without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH?As a followup, it seems to me that we don't need it (I was about to start patching makefiles): linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7fc7000) libslapd.so.0 => /scratch/fedora-ds/prefix/lib/fedora-ds/libslapd.so.0 (0xb7f14000) libssldap60.so => /usr/lib/libssldap60.so (0xb7ef3000) libprldap60.so => /usr/lib/libprldap60.so (0xb7eed000) And my ns-slapd binary starts perfectly well without any LD_LIBRARY_PATH foo.I thought I saw this being discussed at some point, and I wondered if I could suggest it again. It could remove some of the shell-script wrapper stuff, which kind of looks funny... BTW, how is this packaged? I think the '-bin' versions of the commandsshould be in libexec, if they are not to be directly executed...Unless I'm missing something drastic, we shouldn't need these scripts at all. None of the binaries I had showed any undefined libraries... Andrew Bartlett-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
