On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Brian Richardson wrote: > OK. You're wrong. /usr/local/lib is not a standard search path, nor is > it in the ld.so.conf in FC1. You're right. I checked. I jumped to conclusions. When I compiled subversion on FC1 it Just Worked, and when I compiled the same release in FC2 it didn't. But it did work when I symlinked the libraries in /usr/local/lib to /usr/lib. Running strace, I see that on FC1 it is finding the libraries in my build directory. I wonder how it is doing that? On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > To match ld.so.conf with GCC's expectations, simply add /usr/local/lib > to ld.so.conf and make sure it has precedence over /usr/lib. .. > Some people consider it to be a bug/inconsistency in all RH-based > distributions, others say "/usr/local" is beyond the scope of a > distributor's responsibility and therefore consider > adding /usr/local/lib to ld.so.conf to be task of a local system > administrator ;-) So many distribution INSTALLs and READMEs just say './configure && make && make install' and have a default prefix of '/usr/local'. They never say anything about having to check your libraries in /usr/local not being loaded by default at runtime. I'm wondering why I've never been bitten by this before. -- Greg Matheson
