ldconfig does not work on fedora?

[brson]

11:49 < gleb> brson: ldconfig man page on fc20 tells me that it works with /lib, /usr/lib and stuff you put in /etc/ld.so.conf there's no mention of /usr/local and if I just invoke ldconfig, rustc can't find its libs anymore

[gkoz]

For the record,

[user@dev ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
[user@dev ~]$ grep local /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*
[user@dev ~]$ 

[brson]

My current thinking is that we detect this scenario by grepping through /etc and then print a warning. A second step might be to, when in interactive mode, explain the problem, and ask if we can frob ld.so.conf.

We could also detect systems like this and install to /usr/ instead of /usr/local, but even in Fedora I think the recommendation is for third-party software to go in /usr/local.

[gkoz]

Putting /usr/local/lib[64] into /etc/ld.so.conf.d/local.conf seems to be the cleaner option and shouldn't be too disruptive.

[seankelly]

I'm on Fedora 21 and had the same issue. I created /etc/ld.so.conf.d/local.conf, put those two directories in it, and ran ldconfig. Everything worked and I was happy.

[rich-pixley]

/local and /usr/local have essentially been lost. They're now used by OS vendors.

The right place for third party, binary installs on linux is now /opt/vendor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard

[gkoz]

@rich-pixley
The FHS seems to explicitly allow installing into /usr/local.

[brson]

This needs to be fixed soon. I forgot that rust-installer itself doesn't have any notion of interactive/non-interactive installs, so I guess it needs to just go ahead and make @gkoz's change when it looks necessary.

[brson]

I've opened another issue for /opt.

[brson]

Here's a patch