James Purser wrote: > This is a question for those with much more c/c++ experience than me. I > have discovered that dapper and possibly breezy both lack the ld.so.conf > file instead relying on ldconfig which only looks at /usr/lib and /lib > for libraries.
Err, they do? My laptop which ran Breezy and has been updated to Dapper has an ld.so.conf file. Although, now that I think about it, maybe I added it. Google, google, google ..... Hmm, can't find anything about Breezy or Dapper not having one. > Is this a good thing? Having ld.so.conf is a good thing. > This is a serious question. When I asked about > this I was told I shouldn't be using /usr/local/lib anymore. Whoever said that was wrong. I am a big fan of installing the binary packages over compiling from source, but there are times when I want to run code from CVS so I can track the latest developments. When I do that I put that code in /usr/local. This is the right thing to do. > Considering > how much software still defaults to building/installing > in /usr/local/... Exactly. This is the right thing to do. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "When a dog, a pig, or a disbeliever touches or comes in contact with the clothes or body [of a Muslim] while he [the disbeliever] is wet, it becomes obligatory-compulsory upon him [the Muslim] to wash and clean that part which came in contact with the disbeliever." -- As taught in a British islamic school http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3560 _______________________________________________ coders mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
