On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 11:30:45AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Welcome to the nem Hamm Bugs Stamp-Out List. > > > > 21884 libc6-dev: relative links between top-level dirs > > > I'm not sure what to do abou this one. > > The upstream maintainer (Ulrich D.) insists that the relative links are > correct and that making /usr a symlink to something else is "evil".
You should ask him why he uses an absolute path to /lib/libc.so.6 in the /usr/lib/libc.so linker script then. > Rebuilding the links is at the edge of my shell script skills, and > certainly outside any time frame I have available at the moment. > > I feel the need for some discussion on the technical consequences of > changing these links, as well as the consequences of not changing them. Here is little bash snippet to be added very late in the 'debian/rules binary' stage that does the job. It is a liitle specific to the glibc 2.0.7 release, but that shouldn't be a big problem at this time. v=2.0.7 pv=0.7 cd debian/tmp/usr/lib for f in *.so ; do if [ $f != libc.so -a $f != libndbm.so ]; then rm $f if [ $f != libpthread.so ]; then ln -s /lib/$(basename $f .so)-$v.so $f else ln -s /lib/$(basename $f .so)-$pv.so $f fi fi done Dale you should note that this also makes another important change that should have been noticed by me a long time ago. It changes the symlink to point to the actual shared library file instead of the soname symlink. For example, this would make /usr/lib/libm.so point to /lib/libm-2.0.7.so instead of /lib/libm.so.6. This change makes it harder for a user to screw up his compilation environment by simply installing a newer shared library file and running ldconfig manually. David -- David Engel ODS Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1001 E. Arapaho Road (972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]