[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thomas E. Dickey
Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:20:47 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Albert Chin-A-Young wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 05:46:01AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:55:37AM -0500, Albert Chin-A-Young wrote:
> > > 2. The value of EXTRA_LDFLAGS if --enable-rpath is given for Solaris is:
> > > EXTRA_LDFLAGS="-R ../lib:\$(libdir) $EXTRA_LDFLAGS"
> > >
> > > Is this really a wise thing? I might need some correcting on this but
> > ...
> > > I know why ../lib is chosen but I dislike it.
> > iirc, the reason why is that it won't link otherwise (yes, it is ugly, but
> > given the number of people who try to run the applications without
> > installing
> > them, it seems the best solution). But it is restrictive (doesn't really
> > allow rearrangement of the pieces after linking).
> Are there any security implications? That's my main concern.
I recall seeing a comment to that effect (I know that some loaders will,
some won't use _your_ ../lib versus the executable's ../lib). Perhaps I
should investigate that (thanks).