Re: [INTERFACES] Using libpq without LD_LIBRARY_PATH

From: "Billy G(dot) Allie" <Bill(dot)Allie(at)mug(dot)org>
To: James Thompson <jamest(at)math(dot)ksu(dot)edu>
Cc: Matthew Hagerty <matthew(at)venux(dot)net>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Using libpq without LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Date: 1999-02-06 08:10:41
Message-ID: 199902060810.DAA11962@bgalli.mug.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

James Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I am trying to get a simple C program to compile and run without having to
> > define the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable. First I tried this:
> >
>
> Depending on your OS you may have an /etc/ld.so.conf file.
> Simply add what you normally put in your LD_LIBRARY_PATH into that file.
> Then do a ldconfig -v as root (-v optional but you can see it working) and
> the libs will be available without the var set. This is what I do on my
> linux systems and it works well.
>
> On my solaris systems I've stuck with what the set up created before I got
> here. A shell script is called by all users logins. It defines the
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH for everyone when they log in. I have no idea if there is
> a better way as this works so I've never bothered to mess with it.
>
I belive that on Solaris you can define LD_RUN_PATH to the library paths to
search and they will be embedded into the executalble so that LD_LIBRARY_PATH
will not be needed. I know this is the case with UnixWare.
--
____ | Billy G. Allie | Domain....: Bill(dot)Allie(at)mug(dot)org
| /| | 7436 Hartwell | Compuserve: 76337,2061
|-/-|----- | Dearborn, MI 48126| MSN.......: B_G_Allie(at)email(dot)msn(dot)com
|/ |LLIE | (313) 582-1540 |

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KoPra Workshop 1999-02-06 09:00:26 postmaster confiugration and hardware configuration
Previous Message James Thompson 1999-02-06 04:23:24 Re: [INTERFACES] connecting: unix socket? Yes. TCPIP port? No. -i? Yes.