On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 07:14:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I realized that some of these are from LFS. If we decide to change, it > would need to be updated too. > I thought BLFS was a sub-project of LFS : cart, horse ?
> One of the points I tried to make was that it does not affect building > or running the programs. gcc/ld automatically search /lib and ld.so > does also. > > The question was a bit more subtle. Is it OK to put things only needed > for building in /lib? Historically, that location was only for the > minimum needed to get critical programs running at boot time before /usr > was mounted. > > So it doesn't make a practical difference. It's sort of an "artistic" > (for lack of a better word) thing that certain files should be in > 'standard' locations. The reason I brought it up is just that the file > locations don't feel right to me. > Iff you have a separate /usr partition, and can demonstrate that some things in /lib are *not* needed to boot, then yes, there is a case to answer. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
