|Subject:||RE: Why is "setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH very bad"?|
|Date:||Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:22:09 +0200|
> I've seen very frequent references to "LD_LIBRARY_PATH bad".
> Is there a reference that summaries this badness?
I would be interested in this as well. I know there are few issues off the top of my head:
- Can turn into a nightmare maintaining a huge LD_LIBRARY_PATH
- Perhaps it is possible to create a replacement library that some suid application uses and you can then gain root access (maybe there are other things stopping this from happening?)
- Big pain when developing, have to make sure your LD_LIBRARY_PATH is always set correctly, pointing to your build area. And then if you have multiple checkouts (perhaps working on a branch), you need to keep changing your LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Having said that, I don't see what the problem is really in a controlled environment with production installations? Again, using my Oracle example, there is no way they could force you to install into a special place. They require setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Obviously you don't want every single utility and application installed having its own special lib dir, but isn't that the normal thing to do for large(r) software distributions? Especially commercial software?
And what is a real problem is when you do need to move a package. THen the rpath can cause a big headache for you depending on the situation.
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now!
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|