On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:38:18 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hazel Russman wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:28:07 -0600
> > Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> >  
> >> Hazel Russman wrote:  
> >>> In the search paths, the book says:
> >>> "References to paths that have components with '-linux-gnu' should be 
> >>> ignored, but otherwise the output of the last command should be:
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib64")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib64")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib64")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib")
> >>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib");"
> >>>
> >>> In fact this list includes the -linux-gnu items, so the introductory
> >>> sentence is unnecessary. It obviously came over from Chapter 5, where
> >>> it refers to paths that still include the /tools prefix.  
> >>
> >> What's wrong with the introductory sentence?  The -linux-gnu directories
> >> do not exist.  
> 
> > But they do! They're in the printed list above (1st and 5th item) and
> > they appear in my list too. Or am I seeing things?  
> 
> $ ls /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64
> ls: cannot access '/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64': No such file or directory
> 
> $ ls /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib
> ls: cannot access '/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib': No such file or directory
> 
> They are in the list but the directories do not exist.  Neither do 
> /usr/local/lib64 or /usr/lib64.  Or at least thy shouldn't any more.
> 
> Non existing directories in the search path should be ignored.
> 
>    -- Bruce
Ah, I see! It was that "but otherwise" that confused me. I still think it's 
ambiguous.
--
H Russman
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Do not top post on this list.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

Reply via email to