Re: Another library irregularity

[Dennis Leeuw]

> >
> > Well that would be solved by using the scripts. And it has nothing to do
> > with PATH.
>
> True. But reversing the paths would find the script and not the executable. 
> If we stick with the scripts, this should be solved for user-friendlyness.
>
> > I don't really care whether we use the scripts or not. We should decide
> > and stick with it.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> > Taking out the scripts would make it less confusing,
> > but apparently, no less frustrating.
>
> True also, certainly when environment vars seem to disappear, like 
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH sometimes does. That's what I like about the wrapper scripts, 
> they make sure all vars are
> well, but then again 'which' should find the script, not the binary.
>
> With the scripts we can circumvent ld.so.conf, if we take out the scripts we 
> have a problem with different backends.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Dennis

What I thought of today, was we could also use a 
System/Library/Configuration/SystemConfig file that contains the environment 
variables and every application sets up it's own
vars based on that, don't know if it is possible, just an idea to solve the 
script/path problem.

Dennis

dleeuw.vcf
Description: Card for Dennis Leeuw