handling of empty LD_RUN_PATH ?
Maciej W. Rozycki
Tue Oct 24 03:35:00 GMT 2006
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.
More information about the Binutils