>> What does this "keep on" breaking? > >All sorts of things are now infected with weird and fragile code to >handle this edge case. For example, check out the hacks in >/usr/lib/lu/lucopy -- it has to unmount and remount libc in order to >do the copy correctly. Even then, it's frightening, as there's really >no way to know what might attempt to open up libc in the interval >while it's unmounted.
And all those things were broken at some point (we're having this discussion because something new was broken, right?) Stuff keeps on breaking, as I said. But it's different stuff all the time. And as James adds, the maintenance cost of this silly idea is just mindboggling, with code in lu*, in flar, in GNOME and the list just grows.... >While I agree that roping off the somewhat obscure ld.config file >would not have been good, it seems a shame that there's no better >answer, because the lofs mount is, in my opinion, ugly. I was not suggesting taking away ld.config or whatnot; I was merely suggesting that since this is a programmatically controlled file, having a *system* *private* entry in it is no big deal as long as we make sure it is resurrected on boot and handled with due care by the tools. (I.e., no, the system admin does not get to much with it) Casper
