While creating .so files (aka shared objects aka dynamic libraries aka shared libraries) for a suite of appliaction software (with many different apps) on a CentOS4/RHEL4 platform, I've been reading up on .so-file creation:

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Li...libraries.html
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/...ands_and_Files
http://www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/~hitoshi/ot...gcc-memo.shtml

While I can see power in the soname for versioning purposes, I wonder: why am I forced to use this .so.x.y.z naming and complexity? It's screwing things up big time when I got to copy libraries around for transport to other systems and/or to save the libraries in a CVS/Subversion repository (and checkout the lib files later). I'd rather just have one .so-file name, if I could, manage only one file, not mess with and ldconfig things or soft links, etc. Is there a way to do this? If not, is there a way to simplify this seemingly-hazy topic for the moment?

Additionally, can I force g++ to build an app that looks, at run time, *only* in the directories I specify for .so-file resolution? I ask as a security measure to keep crackers on my host systems from inserting rogue libraries in /usr/lib, etc.

Also: I haven't yet see --rpath or -Wl,rpath work for my g++ builds...but I still could be screwing something up.

Thanks for any help,
-Matt

I should also mention:

I want my .so files/libraries to be in directories of my choosing, and NOT the standard places (/usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, etc). I have a software/application suite that I wish to operate "autonomously," separate from any other installed libraries on the host system, for both reliability and security purposes. This way I feel I can better ensure that all the "embedded" libraries on the distributed systems behave as they should, just as they do on my test systems. I can also be protected from non-malicious sysadmins (and malicious users) from upgrading/changing libraries in standard places which break my software.

I have a /toplevel dir with /toplevel/lib, /toplevel/bin, etc...and I want all my .so files to be "transported" (different from "ported" because I'm currently only using RHEL4/CentOS4 and don't need to "port" across heterogenous systems...yet) to different /toplevel directory names/prefixes on different systems without creating much fuss...as well as being able to softlink a standard /toplevel-soft-link dir to the full /toplevel directory name so I can adhere to any hard-coded run-time .so search path if need be (which is good for lowering post-sales support stuff, too).

I really want to avoid relying on LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

Thanks again for any help. I hope my ramblings make sense. I can clarify some tomorrow after some sleep...hopefully.

-Matt