On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 12:35:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > > >>>>> "Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Robbe> For one, it is unnecessary, and wastes time. But more > > Robbe> importantly, the Hurd has no ld.so.cache, which kills > > Robbe> reason 2 on this platform. Debian GNU/Hurd systems also > > Robbe> don't have reason 1, so there is currently no real ldconfig > > Robbe> program on the Hurd. Rather than writing a program that's > > Robbe> completely pointless, I'd rather we called ldconfig > > Robbe> correcly, i.e. with the -X parameter. "ldconfig -X" will > > Robbe> just do nothing on the Hurd. > > > > I fail to see: > > > > What is wrong with the current practise on the Hurd, where ldconfig > > is a do nothing program? > > We could make it bail out with an error if something is requested which > isn't implemented. Sometimes, debian/rules scripts run ldconfig to set > links. So we want to provide an ldconfig dummy script which will error out > for any unsupported operation, and only return success silently for > operations which are unnecessary on the Hurd (as rebuilding the cache).
FYI, glibc 2.2.3-5 has a script for ldconfig on hurd. Let me know how it works in this repsect. Ben -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'