Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: "make check" with libzsh (e.g. FreeBSD)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 14688
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Andrej Borsenkow <Andrej.Borsenkow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: "make check" with libzsh (e.g. FreeBSD)
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:52:38 +0000
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SV4.4.33.0106022143160.27900-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <Pine.SV4.4.33.0106022143160.27900-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jun 2, 9:48pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: "make check" with libzsh (e.g. FreeBSD)
}
} The actual problem is interaction between LD_RUN_PATH encoded in
} executable and LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I.e. when two libraries exist, which
} one is used. It may result in obscure test failures.
This is hardly ever going to be a problem except for someone who is
trying to keep up with individual patches. For everyone else, the
version number will change between installs.
} The only proper workaround is to recompile zsh with different LD_RUN_PATH
} value. Or use libtool - I guess, it is quite usable now.
I've had nothing but trouble with it the last several times I tried to
use it. Not because of any particular flaw in its function, but because
it now depends on the availability of various compatibility libraries,
which I've been unable to compile because they in turn depend on the very
latest gcc/glibc, or for various other reasons.
IMO using libtool would have the opposite of the intended effect -- it
would restrict the number of platforms on which zsh can easily be compiled.
However, I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author