On Wednesday 09 September 2009 20:59:03 Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Michael Tsang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 September 2009 23:56:31 Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Michael Tsang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 08 September 2009 11:13:06 Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: > > > > > hi, I'm just wondering, what's the purpose of moving the symlink in > > > > > '/lib/libz.so', and creating a '/usr/lib/libz.so' instead? FHS > > > > > > > > compliance? > > > > > > > > > LSB compliance? just because '/usr/lib' is first in the search path > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > '/lib'? > > > > > > > > Short answer: it is just for cleanness in / > > > > Long answer: *.so files are only needed at compile-time so they are > > > > better placed in /usr than in / . The dynamic loader finds libz.so.1 > > > > > > thanks, but I'm talking about /lib, vs /usr/lib? there is no libz.so at > > > > the > > > > > root ('/') > > > > > > -jf > > > > Simply because it's not needed. > > it's not needed where? > > -jf >
It's not needed when running programs in /{,s}bin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
