Re: death to -{I,L}/our/{include,lib}!

Jonathon F ...

>   This is aside to the dependencies issue, but does every linker support
> -R to avoid insanity with ldconfig or LD_LIBRARY_PATH ?

As others have said, no.  (But, note: Sun linker - yes)
HP-UX (10/11) is the one I happen to know about.  But it
lets you tell the linker "+b :", which means "take all the
-L paths and toss them in the executable for use at
runtime".  Which seems OK to me.

HP-UX also supplies a program 'chattr' (change attributes)
which lets you meddle with executables.  Among other things,
it lets you go in and tweak these kinds of paths.  (Not that
I've ever done it).

Does anyone know of a linker on a faintly modern Unix that
is entirely *losing*?

>   It would be good to have -R/our/lib in there.

Um, er, this is just the runtime variant of what I think's
probably not too good an idea...

>   Now, for the dynamic dependencies, you know which files
> are in a pkg right - so when a binary gets installed in
> /our/bin you can see what it actually needs with ldd - and
> add the pkgs that contain those files to the dependencies
> for the pkg that contains the binaries. Automatically of
> course.

Is this the 'I can reconstruct the dependencies after the
fact?' angle?  That's certainly cool with me, in a
belt-and-braces kind of way...  But I'm leaning to the view
that dependencies (and, note, who says dependencies are
always *package*-to-*package*...?) are important enough that
they *appear* in your "system source code" and sysadmins
actively *see* them (and *type* them) in their daily work
and they splat onto web pages, etc., etc.

(As ever, there is nothing in the basic ARK stuff that
*makes you* {do,think,go-along-with} any of this stuff...
We are the antidote to the "I'm going to tell you how to
run/admin/use your systems" admin :-)

Will