WINEDLLPATH and /usr/lib/wine

[Hin-Tak Leung]

--- On Mon, 25/1/10, Michael Ost <most at museresearch.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> > Not necessarily, the behavior could probably be
> tweaked, feel free to
> > suggest changes. You can't require users to set
> WINEDLLPATH for normal
> > usage though, including running from the build tree or
> from a relocated
> > install.
> 
> Two easy options would be:
> 1. put /usr/lib/wine at the end of the list automatically.
> This is Hin-Tak Leung's approach.
> 2. require users to add /usr/lib/wine themselves. I could
> make a patch for that.
> 
> #1 is easier for me :) but #2 is a little more "standard",
> acting like LD_LIBRARY_PATH or PATH do.
> 
> Which would you prefer? ... mo

If I understand that bit of code correctly, the current behavior is such that built-ins comes before WINEDLLPATH *and* after, so there is no way a user per-application built-ins can override (even temporarily on a per application basis) the system-wide built-ins.

As ddiwrapper - the application I was interested in - tried to provide a gdl32.dll.so which does different things - it stopped working when the system-wide built-ins is both prepended and appended to library search.
I think it should work like  LD_LIBRARY_PATH, really as they are platform shared libraries.

There is, of course a rather absurd way of working around the current situation - cross-compilating the override desired as win32 PE's (then 
WINEDLLOVERRIDES does work) - but this doesn't quite work, for things like ddiwrapper again, as it actually wants to do host-native (linux-) things, rather than win32-only things.