[lsb-discuss] appchk - command line processing

Scott Baeder baeder at cadence.com
Thu Jun 28 08:52:23 PDT 2007

I agree that finding a better way to deal with apps that use dlopen
would be a good thing.  It is something we use quite a lot, since our
applications know where they are located, and how to find the libraries
it needs.  When you have so many applications, using LD_LIBRARY_PATH
just gets too confusing, and it's not always possible to use wrapper
scripts, etc.


Scott Baeder			  MA - (978) 262-6299
270 Billerica Rd		  SJ - (408) 944-7785
Chelmsford, MA			Cell - (508) 331-1530

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org 
> [mailto:lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org] On 
> Behalf Of Robert Schweikert
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:18 AM
> To: lsb-discuss
> Subject: [lsb-discuss] appchk - command line processing
> I think we need to find a better way to deal with 
> applications using dlopen. The problem is that for systems 
> with a lerge number of shared libraries it is possible to 
> blow out the buffer in appchk when adding all libraries with 
> -L to the command line.
> I propose that appcheck should be able to process libraries 
> provided in a file or take all command line options from a 
> file. We can argue over the format.
> This would eliminate having to call appchk over and over 
> again with the -L option for each library. Another option 
> would be to add a -allLibs switch which would process all 
> libraries in a given directory whether or not they show up in 
> a DT_NEEDED section.
> Robert
> -- 
> Robert Schweikert                       MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> (robert.schweikert at mathworks.com)                 LINUX
> The MathWorks Inc.
> Phone : 508-647-2042
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list