On 08/11/2012 10:45 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> test@isnote $ man ld.so | grep -F .conf
> test@isnote $
>
> That file doesn't exist on many UNIX systems.
So I guess the following was an overly-specialized statement:
On 08/09/2012 02:16 AM, Zachary Harris wrote:
> 2) All essential libraries should live either directly in /lib{,32,64},
> or in any subdirectories thereof that are *explicitly specified* in
> /etc/ld.so.conf.
Indeed, both ld.so.conf and ldconfig, which FHS-utils heavily relies
upon, are themselves specified as "optional" in the FHS. For that matter
so is the perl interpreter, without which fhscheck wouldn't even make it
to line 3, but rather would crash at #!/usr/bin/perl -w! But a guy has
to start somewhere, and I wouldn't even dream about making FHS-utils
into a compiled, general purpose portability tool unless there somehow
seemed to be a sufficient demand, and unless the Perl prototype first
proved useful.
> it seems weird that
> a portability testing tool crashes on line 3 due to
> portability issues... :-o
True! Thanks for taking the time to give it a shot and for pointing
that out. Please accept my preemptive apology for bothering anyone with
my naivety:
On 08/10/2012 09:33 PM, Zachary Harris wrote:
> neither dynamic-linking related issues nor Perl programming have
> previously [been] areas of specialization for me (i.e. I'm still learning), so
> forgive me for any dumb stuff in there.
So the upshot then is that I shouldn't try to overstretch the
advertisement of FHS-utils beyond the original intended audience as a
potential Debian package.
Thanks again,
Zach
_______________________________________________
fhs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
