Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/22/05 11:23 CST:
I read the thread that Jack gave and Gerard wants to keep the links in both places: /usr/lib because they are needed and /lib for consistency. After all, this is primarily an LFS issue and only marginally a BLFS issue. Additionally, I suspect they are needed on /lib in the case that ld.so.cache becomes unavailable for some reason.
Well, then, I suppose the LFS gang needs to all get on the same page. The Readline and Shadow instructions don't agree with what you say above.
As I look at LFS 6.0, I see: mv /usr/lib/lib{shadow,misc}.so.0* /lib ln -sf ../../lib/libshadow.so.0 /usr/lib/libshadow.so ln -sf ../../lib/libmisc.so.0 /usr/lib/libmisc.so
and
mv /usr/lib/lib{readline,history}.so.5* /lib
ln -sf ../../lib/libhistory.so.5 /usr/lib/libhistory.so
ln -sf ../../lib/libreadline.so.5 /usr/lib/libreadline.soWhich seems consistent to me.
Furthermore, here's the million dollar question:
When we update BLFS to go to Shadow-4.0.7, do we install it as LFS does, or do we install it differently (include the .so symlink in /lib)?
Looking at LFS and BLFS, I believe the instructions are consistent now. Of course we are adding PAM, so there is some difference. Do you see an issue that I don't?
I do see a minor issue that is related. The lines:
mv /bin/sg /usr/bin && mv /bin/vigr /usr/sbin && mv /usr/bin/passwd /bin && rm /bin/groups &&
./configure --libdir=/usr/lib still installs programs in /bin it appears. We don't have explainations for these commands. Also, does it install passwd in /usr/bin? Seems inconsistent.
To me, however the Shadow instructions are done in BLFS, the PAM instructions should match.
Match or be consistent? As I said, I think we are consistent now.
-- Bruce
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
