On 04/23/2013 12:44 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> On 04/22/2013 08:17 AM, zxq9 wrote:
>> Btw, this is a pretty baggage-laden way of starting a thread... couldn't
>> you just send a fresh email to the list?
>
> The "baggage" makes it very clear as to how much effort and
> correspondence are expended upon this issue -- a theoretical discussion
> in a vacuum by-passes the significant reality of this problem.
>
> A far better solution would be proper overloaded polymorphism (of which
> a very limited instance is provided through lib and lib64). In principle
> can be done through a specification of the exact execution and search
> path for any program (in which such a path includes both the regular
> path variable in a shell and the loader library path), but this
> mechanism is not widely implemented with the binary RPMs as provided.
> However, such a discussion is a matter of engineering and design, not
> strictly technology; whereas it has been made abundantly clear that the
> SL list is restricted to technology. Hence my queries as to technology
> without addressing the fundamental design flaw.
>
> Yasha Karant

Sounds like you got it all sorted, then. Cheers.