Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 09:24, Thomas Poindessous wrote: On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 20:28, Matt Kraai wrote: On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Poindessous wrote: Hi, I tried to rebuild d-i and I looked that symlinks of /lib/ld-2.2.5 to /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (and others) was missing. Please remind me: why do we need to preserve these symlinks? If there is no symlinks, ash and busybox can't work (from ash-udeb and busybox-udeb) Why not just install the real libraries under the sonames? p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
* Philip Blundell | On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 09:24, Thomas Poindessous wrote: | On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 20:28, Matt Kraai wrote: | On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Poindessous wrote: |Hi, I tried to rebuild d-i and I looked that symlinks of /lib/ld-2.2.5 to |/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (and others) was missing. | | Please remind me: why do we need to preserve these symlinks? | | If there is no symlinks, ash and busybox can't work (from ash-udeb and | busybox-udeb) | | Why not just install the real libraries under the sonames? Because then you can't see which version of the library it really is? -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
On Wed Jul 24, 2002 at 11:28:46AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Poindessous wrote: Hi, I tried to rebuild d-i and I looked that symlinks of /lib/ld-2.2.5 to /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (and others) was missing. Please remind me: why do we need to preserve these symlinks? The only reason for the symlinks is to make it easy to upgrade libraries -- not something the installer needs to worry about... Sure, just install the libs with their proper .so names and we can save (1 inode + ~4k)/per symlink from the installer rootfs. -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:21, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Philip Blundell | On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 09:24, Thomas Poindessous wrote: | On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 20:28, Matt Kraai wrote: | On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Poindessous wrote: |Hi, I tried to rebuild d-i and I looked that symlinks of /lib/ld-2.2.5 to |/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (and others) was missing. | | Please remind me: why do we need to preserve these symlinks? | | If there is no symlinks, ash and busybox can't work (from ash-udeb and | busybox-udeb) | | Why not just install the real libraries under the sonames? Because then you can't see which version of the library it really is? Is it really useful to be able to do that for the installation disks? Without information on what Debian patches have been applied, knowing the base version number of the library doesn't seem to buy much. If it's important to be able to go back and figure out what libraries are on an old build of boot-floppies after the fact, we ought to ship some kind of explicit file that details what package versions were used in the build. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
Erik Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed Jul 24, 2002 at 11:28:46AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Poindessous wrote: Hi, I tried to rebuild d-i and I looked that symlinks of /lib/ld-2.2.5 to /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (and others) was missing. Please remind me: why do we need to preserve these symlinks? The only reason for the symlinks is to make it easy to upgrade libraries -- not something the installer needs to worry about... Sure, just install the libs with their proper .so names and we can save (1 inode + ~4k)/per symlink from the installer rootfs. The symlinks are converted to hardlinks, so they only take up space in the directory, but usually not enough to push it over 1k, so it saves not a single byte. -- Falk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
Philip Blundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit: Is it really useful to be able to do that for the installation disks? Without information on what Debian patches have been applied, knowing the base version number of the library doesn't seem to buy much. If it's important to be able to go back and figure out what libraries are on an old build of boot-floppies after the fact, we ought to ship some kind of explicit file that details what package versions were used in the build. It might be nice to update some stuff and document this. udeb packaging policy; like: install shared library matching their soname -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154169: mklibs: bug re-introduces (symlinks)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Poindessous wrote: Hi, I tried to rebuild d-i and I looked that symlinks of /lib/ld-2.2.5 to /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (and others) was missing. Please remind me: why do we need to preserve these symlinks? Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
