On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:34:05PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:32:21AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > > > However, I still don't think that ldconfig should create symlinks to > > > symlinks. It certainly didn't do that in woody. > > > > Could you tell me the reason? > > 1. It didn't do that in woody. > 2. In this case we're talking about a symlink to a real file in /lib > which has already been processed by ldconfig. There is no need to have > another symlink in /usr/lib.
This has already been reported; Jeff, it's the "infamous ldconfig bug" that we never got around to looking at, but you identified the patch that introduced it, didn't you? -- Daniel Jacobowitz
