[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130816062536.GX221@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:25:36 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Progress on roadmap to 0.9.13
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 02:59:12 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >One key target for 0.9.13 which I didn't cover above is improving
> >"make install" and possibly tweaking the symlink strategy for libc.so
> >and ld-musl.so. At several times in the past, I was fairly convinced
> >that it makes more sense to reverse the symlink direction and have
> >libc.so point to ld-musl.so rather than the other way around. However,
> >I keep going back to doubting that there's any good reason for it to
> >change. So if there are people who still care about this issue, I'd
> >really like to hear you speak up _now_ rather than 2 days before the
> >next release, or after the next release.
>
> Which makes it easier to install uClibc and musl and bionic next to
> each other? (You can have /lib/musl and /lib/uClibc and /lib/bionic
> for most of the .so and .a files, but the dynamic linker is a
> hardwired abspath in each binary and then the linker would be what
> searches the more specific path...)
Makes no difference. Either way, the dynamic linker is intended to be
in /lib and everything else can be wherever you want it to be.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
