| 1 |
On 29-03-2010 21:22:12 +0200, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: |
| 2 |
> > First hint: Do _not_ use LD_LIBRARY_PATH (on a regular basis) for various reasons. |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> I keep seeing this statement repeated on the web, but somehow always |
| 5 |
> feel the reasons given don't apply in my usecase (I might of course be |
| 6 |
> wrong..). And using LD_LIBRARY_PATH is incredibly convenient for a |
| 7 |
> number of reasons: It allows moving directories around, moving programs |
| 8 |
> to our cluster for execution without recompiling, ship a binary tarball |
| 9 |
> to others with the same system. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I realize people have strong opinions about this. Please, I don't want |
| 12 |
> to start any flamewars. (In particular I don't feel strongly for arguing |
| 13 |
> about one vs. the other, just saying that I'm currently a happy |
| 14 |
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH user.) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Gentoo Prefix doesn't work with LD_LIBRARY_PATH, so if your environment |
| 17 |
is designed to use it, then we simply cannot offer a solution to you. |
| 18 |
> It is a weakness shared with the *current* approach used by pretty much |
| 19 |
> everybody, which is to provide my package, list the 15 dependencies, and |
| 20 |
> have people sort it out by themselves -- which is a major waste of time |
| 21 |
> (to make an understatement, not all scientists are experts in building |
| 22 |
> software). To the point that people rewrite complicated stuff themselves |
| 23 |
> just to avoid the dependencies... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You could consider building binary packages and offering them to your |
| 26 |
scientists. Gentoo Prefix can install binary packages in different |
| 27 |
locations than they are built for, although -- to be honest -- it's a |
| 28 |
sufficiently scaring technology to try and avoid it if possible (by |
| 29 |
having the same install location everywhere). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 34 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives