Andrew, >> It seem silly and this problem should have been solved in other libc?! >> Looking at ulibc and glibc Makefile I don't see the direct same way as >> musl so I will need to run and make more test to see the diff... > > Other libc use a separate ld and libc, so they don't have this problem. > musl uses one file, libc.so, as both tasks and it determines which way > it's being used.
I thought they where not the only one to do that ... thx for explaining. > > ldconfig is making a mostly sane assumption that symlinks within lib > dirs which don't go anywhere should be removed as they're likely left > over from old libs which are not installed anymore. Usually this is not > a bad thing to do. > >>> Would it be better to simply patch musl to have the symlink be relative >>> instead of absolute? Although that's a better question for the musl ml >>> I think as I'm sure there's a good reason it's absolute... >> >> Let's ask them! > > The reason is that you may have a different syslibdir and libdir. What > musl is doing is the right way for them, just annoying for us. > So if syslibdir and libdir were differnt will we have the same problem with gcc ? thx, -KA _______________________________________________ Clfs-support mailing list Clfs-support@lists.cross-lfs.org http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-support-cross-lfs.org
