> > If the desired effect is really to have shared libraries loaded from > > whatever the current directory is, then the administrator should add > > the single dot . to LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > But isn't a . in LD_LIBRARY_PATH the same as an empty entry. > Or anyway, just as insecure? They mean the same but one is less likely to apear in the variable by accident as happens in this case. > What the original script should do is append to LD_LIBRARY_PATH > only if it is already defined. It's quite a common mistake I fear. Agree, but with the system-wide ignoring of blank LD_LIBRARY_PATH entries you have some fault-tolerance against wrongheaded packages. -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################
