DJ Lucas wrote:
On 07/24/2016 06:03 PM, Chris Staub wrote:
On 07/23/2016 05:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
That symlink dates back to when 64bit Linux was first introduced to
LFS, and made a good deal of sense at the time. The toolchain used to
be a PITA WRT changing the default lib search paths. Not so much
anymore. We should probably take a look at that on next release cycle,
make sure lib is preferred, maybe even drop /lib64 completely, even if
we don't kill the compatibility symlink (which I'd personally like to
see go).
I wouldn't mind seeing the /lib64 symliks go, but I'm not sure packages
would install properly. I think thy would just create the lib64
directories and lead to some files in /lib and others in /lib64 even
though all the libraries are for 64-bit systems. This would need to be
tested.
Note that we create similar symlinks in /opt/xorg.
Is there any reason we modify the linker configuration for all targets and
arch? Realistically, we only need to modify gcc/config/i386/linux{,64}.h
in LFS, and even then, only for GLIBC. The gcc/config/linux.h file is only
for uclibc and bionic (Android), and musl (?) gets redefined in the arch
specific target. Is there any reason to continue to modify all of those
files in LFS? The sed commands get a lot cleaner if we only modify the
needed files.
I'm reluctant to make such changes right now. We are only a week away
from package freeze for 7.10.
In any case, exactly which files do you want to change? Just gcc-pass2 in
Chapter 5? Or are there other places?
BTW, I built Xorg without the /opt/lib64 symlink and everything was fine.
I think we can omit the last part of the Xorg setup:
install -v -m755 -d $XORG_PREFIX &&
install -v -m755 -d $XORG_PREFIX/lib &&
ln -sf lib $XORG_PREFIX/lib64
but I want to test it once more before committing a change.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
