On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 22:33 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:32:11PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:39 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > * in the /etc/bes/bes.conf file there is also a conflict because in > > > > that file the dlopened modules are specified, and therefore the > > > libdir > > > > is different. > > > > > > That's a problem. > > > > You can use $LIB in the path to dlopen iirc > > The idea upstream is to specify the full path such that users may place > files to be dlopened anywhere and it seems to me that it makes sense, > especially since some may be packaged and other site specific (and in > the case of bes, it makes much sense to have site specific software that > is not meant to be packaged even if it is free software, for example if > there is acquisition of data in real time or the like). If people are adding site-specific bits, then having them add a full path is perfectly reasonable. But in the configuration that we ship, it makes a lot more sense to have paths=/usr/$LIB/libfoo.so /usr/$LIB/libbar.so and then the right thing will happen depending on whether or not you're running a 32bit or a 64bit binary. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
