Re: gEDA-user: 20050329 install problem

[Marvin Dickens <marvindickens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 03 April 2005 20:24, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2005 18:48, Marvin Dickens wrote:
> >On Sunday 03 April 2005 18:15, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> >The way it's supposed to work is that the list of directories on
> >> > a system that are to be searched are supposed to be stored in
> >> > the file /etc/ld.so.conf.  A lot of Red Hat derived
> >> > distributions  do not include /usr/local/lib in the file
> >> > /etc/ld.so.conf. Is this a bug or intentional? Regardless, it's
> >> > broken. You can "fix" this by adding /usr/local/lib to
> >> > /etc/ld.so.conf.
> >>
> >> Which I did, years ago.  But, I've been told that /lib, /usr/lib,
> >> and /usr/local/lib are builtin defaults.  But, I've not seen any
> >> evidence that the search is truely exhaustive in looking at the
> >> ld.so.cache here.
> >
> >Neither have I. Perhaps the solution to this conundrum is something
> >along the line of a program that is independent of distributions
> >and/or applications. It's purpose would be to *thoroughly* search
> >the *entire* system and create a database of what is installed and
> >where it is residing on the system. Then ./configure would read
> >the database and know what you have and what you don't have.
>
> Thats called 'updatedb' on *most* distros.

Yes, it is. However, it doesn't work as advertised on most distro's.

> >Currently, regardless of what anybody says, the distro houses
> >tweak the system to be able to call it "Their version of Linux" and
> > pretty much hoark some obscure piece of code residing on the system
> > that invariably affects dependencies for some programs (I suppose I
> > should be saying the ability to properly determine
> > dependencies...). I don't think this is ever going to stop.
>
> Only by the most egregarious violators paying the price as they fold.

Perhaps, this is debatable. For instance, RH, SuSE and Mandrake are all
guilty. RH and SuSE are financially healthy - For sure. Mandrake appears  like
it will probably make it (At least, for the forseeable future).

> >If the program that determined dependencies was not part of the
> > distribution and further, the methodology used to determine
> > dependencies was distro independent, distributors couldn't/wouldn't
> > have the opportunity to screw it up.
>
> Yup, but that would take away what *they* perceive as their
> competitive edge.  Which means in simple terms, it ain't gonna
> happen.

I absolutely agree.

Best

Marvin