At Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:50:31 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> > >> > Conclusion: > >> > > >> > - I would like to see those links in sarge (for amd64 only, no change > >> > for other archs) since they are currently essential for amd64 (glibc > >> > relies on it). What package provides them is no that important. In > >> > base-files it is realy simple to do so. > >> > > >> > - If the links are split out of base-files into other debs and those > >> > don't make it to sarge I would still rather patch base-files for > >> > sarge amd64 before I touch anything else. It is the simplest place > >> > to put them. > >> > >> My conclusion: As the symlinks will not be there forever, it's glibc > >> who relies on them, and there might be potential problems at the time > >> of removing them if they are not in the same package as the dynamic > >> linker or libc6, I consider the glibc package should be the one to > >> manage the symlinks. > > > > Looking at the patch, there're two symlinks: /lib64 and > > /usr/X11R6/lib64. We don't touch /usr/X11R6 in libc6. > > 3: /lib, /usr/lib and /usr/X11R6/lib. > > The /lib64 -> /lib link is essential for the ld to be found and as > Santagio says glibc should take care of it. > > The other two links are more a convenience so less software has to be > patched. Since glibc also puts things in /usr/lib it could take care > of that link too. The X11R6 link could possibly come from X11 itself > but currently it comes from the amd64 patched base-files. > > If you want to take care of all 3 links in glibc that would be fine.
Yes, /lib64 and /usr/lib64 are OK. However, I think glibc shouldn't take care of /usr/X11R6/lib64, because I think /usr/X11R6 directory should be managed by X11 packages. Note that we should be careful about glibc shlib version and /lib64. If we want to use /lib64 instead of /lib in future as biarch/multiarch support, glibc shlib should be bumped up, and all packages that distinguish /lib and /lib64 should depend on the newer shlib glibc. Because /lib and /lib64 are separated at that version, and hand-writing "Depends: libc6 (>= ...)" makes mistakes for some packages (think about number of packages that depend on libc6). So, symlinking /lib64 under glibc has the risk: "bump up shlib versions". It affects all binary packages on all architectures. It's sure we don't need to worry about this problem until biarch/multiarch support. > > Andreas, is it nice to symlink from /lib to /lib64 ? I agree we have > > /lib64 on amd64. > > > > Regards, > > -- gotom > > Currently lib64 links to lib and reversing that link would mean > rebuilding every library package because otherwise dpkg-shlibs won't > work. It would mean patching every lib package to build for lib64 > instead of the current lib to get correct *.la files and dpkgs *.files > info. > > So please don't reverse that link, it would destroy everything we > worked for. No problem, I have no intension to link reversely. I mean "ln -sf /lib /lib64", in this case source (= from) is /lib, to is /lib64, see ln (1). Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
