On 23.07.2016 21:04, Douglas R. Reno wrote: > Armin K. wrote: >> On 23.07.2016 20:59, Douglas R. Reno wrote: >>> Armin K. wrote: >>>> On 21.07.2016 23:59, via blfs-book wrote: >>>>> Author: renodr >>>>> Date: Thu Jul 21 14:59:16 2016 >>>>> New Revision: 17603 >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> Added seds to subversion, libva, and libX11 to silence more libtool >>>>> warnings >>>>> Typo fixes >>>>> >>>> Are you really going to add this to every package, just because it's >>>> anoying? >>> Not to *every* package. Most of them that I have run across don't complain >>> whatsoever. I would say 75% of packages I have built haven't complained. >>> That said, 15% have complained, and 10% don't use Libtool whatsoever. >>>> If you want to get rid of it, use a more elegant solution: >>>> >>>> Remove /usr/lib64 symlink when starting lfs build. Make sure nothing gets >>>> installed >>>> there by using apropriate switches to point to /usr/lib. I think I've >>>> ironed out all >>>> the cases that I've found when I was around, or >>>> >>>> Remove all *.la files in /usr/lib (but not its subdirectories). They are >>>> useless anyways. >>>> >>> If we weren't in the second half of the last month before release, I'd >>> consider suggesting that. That would require a bit more testing than I can >>> muster at the moment. Wouldn't that violate the FHS as well? >>>> >>>> >>> >> No sane distro ships *.la files in /usr/lib, and most of them respect FHS. >> So no, it wouldn't. >> >> > I am specifically talking about the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks. Those are > required by the FHS, if I am not mistaken. I am not opposed to removing the > *.la files, but where would we tell users to do that? The issue with these > warnings is that they detract from useful build output altogether. We already > know that many users don't read the introductory chapters and jump straight > into the build instructions. >
/lib64 is required, specifically because 64 bit programs look for dynamic linker there. As for /usr/lib64, I'm not sure whether other distros ship the symlink. I do know that Fedora explicitly uses /lib64 and /usr/lib64 on 64 bit systems and /lib and /usr/lib on 32 bit system, as is correct by FHS. LFS and some other distros don't follow this convetion, but instead keep /usr/lib64 and /lib64 as a symlink to their non-lib64 counterparts. Possible third solution to the ones above is to explicitly use --libdir=/usr/lib switch on the packages whose *.la files reference /usr/lib64.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
