[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130817093914.4b0a04dd@rafaela>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 09:39:14 -0300
From: "Matias A. Fonzo" <selk@...gora.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Progress on roadmap to 0.9.13
Hello,
El Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:39:13 +0300
Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi> escribió:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:59:12 -0400
> Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> 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. If
> > there's no progress on justifying changes, I think the only changes
> > I'm going to make in this area are to fix lack-of-atomicity issues
> > during installation.
>
> Sorry for late answer.
>
> IIRC the advantages were:
>
> - Easier to install different subarch (even compatible arch versions)
> side by side. As ld.so names are unique - libc.so is same for all so
> those would need to be renamed anyway.
>
> - libc.so and libc.a can go to /usr/lib if libc.so is just an
> optional symlink. this is desirable as the development stuff are not
> nice to keep in /lib.
>
This does not seem viable if /usr is a symlink / or /usr/lib is a
symlink to /lib. /opt can be the place ...
Regards,
Matias
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.
