From: David Garamond <lists@...6.isreserved.com>
Date: 2004-03-05T19:51:08+09:00
Subject: Re: non-root binary distribution

nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
>>Based on your suggestion, I've created a C wrapper like below. The real 
>>ruby is renamed to "ruby.real". Advice welcome, since this is probably 
>>only the 7th or 8th C program I've written, ever. :-)
> 
> I recommend static-linked binary after all. You'd have no merit
> of shared library at all if you put the copy in each users'
> space.

But will static Ruby be problematic when building extensions? For 
example, I tried with plruby and it didn't produce a proper plruby.so. 
Maybe most Ruby extensions are developed with a shared Ruby in mind.

>>#include <stdio.h>
>>#include <errno.h>
>>
>>int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
>>   static char binpath[512+5], libpath[512+6];
> 
> You'd better to get rid of magic numbers.
> 
>>   p = (char *)getenv("LD_LIBRARY_PATH");
>>   if ((env = (char *)malloc(512+1+(p==NULL ? 0:strlen(p)))) == NULL) {
>>     fprintf(stderr, "malloc() failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
>>     exit(1);
>>   }
>>   strcat(env, "LD_LIBRARY_PATH=");
> 
> Use strcpy instead of strcat here, content of malloc'ed area is
> not guaranteed.

Thanks for the suggestions.

-- 
dave