On 02/11/2014 04:48 PM, Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote: >> 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 ?
I'm not sure, actually, since ldconfig is passed the '-n' switch which will only affect the directory given and not others. It's worth trying, though. I'm sorry but I'm not sure I'll have time to work on it this week, but if you find out some solutions and can let me know I can modify the book (or I'm always willing to accept patches to the book). Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ Clfs-support mailing list Clfs-support@lists.cross-lfs.org http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-support-cross-lfs.org
