Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>> This is reasonable, if we rebuild everything with -R, and always install
>> the software in the same location. We had historically let users
>> install the software wherever they wanted.
>
> We being? (I don't remember many products we worked that way).
>
Sorr
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:08:03AM -0800, Steve Nash wrote:
>>> I think it should be a TCR: you MUST build your applications such that
>>> $LD_LIBRARY_PATH does not be set.
>>>
>> This is reasonable, if we rebuild everything with -R, an
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Steve Nash wrote:
>> Comments inline...
>>>> 8.1.1 For Solaris components, what Solaris release(s) does it run on
>>>>or work with?
>>>> OpenSolaris 2008.11
>>> Really? Not on Solaris 10 or earlier at all?
&
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>>> Suggested TCR: If it is absolutely impossible to avoid setting
>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 & LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 must
>>> be used to avoid breaking 32 vs. 64 bit applications.
>>>
>> On Solaris we use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 (only 64 bit applications are
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Steve Nash wrote:
>> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> * changes the default $PATH and $LD_LIBRARY_PATH for all users
>>> How does it change the default $PATH?
>>> How does it set $LD_LIBRARY_PATH without breaking other softwar
Comments inline...
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> The CSW* packages come from blastwave.org
>
> blastwave.org or opencsw.org? (The CSW project recently forked into two
> separate projects.)
>
>> CSWexpect
>> CSWtcl
>> CSWtk
>
> Why are you using these instead of the versions already included in
>
