handling of empty LD_RUN_PATH ?

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> that is pretty much how it's handled currently ... except that in the case 
> of ":", you force $PWD to be searched twice ...

 The cost of readability. ;-)

> but that is the question i posed, do we ignore an empty LD_RUN_PATH (like 
> Debian) or do we tweak the documentation to explicitly say it is allowed ?

 I'd rather we stayed consistent with other PATH-type variables under the 
least surprise principle.  It would surely not hurt to document it.

  Maciej