On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:10:53 -0400 "Alexander Sack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:49:19 -0400 > > "Alexander Sack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Is this a bug or not in FreeBSD's rtld? > >> > >> -aps > > > > It is not. In case it was not clear before, I maintain that you > > _ask_ rtld for wrong behaviour and you get back what you asked for, > > down to the letter. 'Tasting' libraries just because someone > > somewhere want to screw up their configuration does not seem right > > to me at all. > > I maintain that rtld should not load 32-bit libraries for a 64-bit > binary. That is WRONG anyway you look at it. And again, if it checked > the arch type and skipped libutil.so.5 in /usr/lib32 it would fall > back to checking /lib and things would work. Moreover, if /usr/lib > had major number links just like /usr/lib32 has, this would again have > worked without issue. > > I believe this will be fixed on the other side of the fence (not > setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include /usr/lib32 to begin wtih) but > still, my point still stands. > > -aps It doesn't. Stop feeding 32 bit libraries and it won't try to load them. It is as simple as that. For complex scenarious we do provide LD_32_ family of environment variables and if you refuse using them and insist on sticking with clearly broken configuration, it your problem, not rtld's. -- Alexander Kabaev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature