On 04-Dec-05 01:18, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:50:31 +0100, > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > 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).
The symlink "ln -sf /lib /lib64" is currently created by the 'base-files' package. I tried to patch 'glibc' to create that symlink, because I think it should be created by 'glibc' if possible. Logically, it belongs to 'glibc' IMHO. However, I had severe problems with 'glibc' upgrades when the '/lib64' symlink was created by 'glibc' instead of 'base-files'. Basically, everything stopped working during the upgrade because the '/lib64' temporarily disappeared and the binaries could not find the dynamic linker anymore. The '/usr/lib64' symlink is not a problem. It would be nice to have that also in 'glibc' instead of 'base-files'. On the other hand '/usr/lib64' is not really necessary. The 'amd64/gcc-3.4' does not have a '/usr/lib64' at all at the moment and everything works without that directory. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
