Re: /lib/foo.so.X -> /usr/lib/foo.so
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:10:50 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > [...] > > The patch is not a problem (attached). I've been looking at > > how our friends do this. NetBSD has symlinks in /usr/lib to > > /lib, both to .so and .so.X, and their cc(1) and ld(1) don't > > look things in /lib. Linux looks things up in both /lib and > > /usr/lib, and does not have symlinks from /usr/lib to /lib. > > > There is a sad typo above: Linux *does* have symlinks from > /usr/lib to /lib, so both use /usr/lib for linking. What version of Linux are you using? SuSE Enterprise Linux 8, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 both do not have symlinks for libs from /usr/lib to /lib. They use a different machanism: suse# cat /usr/lib/libc.so /* GNU ld script Use the shared library, but some functions are only in the static library, so try that secondarily. */ GROUP ( /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a ) Speaking as a (former) glibc developer (a true convert nowadays): Well, libc is a special case since there are a few functions that aren't provided by the shared libc, but are always linked statically. Linux does this to be compatible with the System V ABI. The whole thing is actually pointless since most interfaces in libc.so aren't compatible with the System V ABI, so it's nothing but a historical fart nowadays. Anyway, I think you'll see a symlink for /usr/lib/libm.so. At least my SuSE Linux 8.2 does have it. Mark ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /lib/foo.so.X -> /usr/lib/foo.so
In the last episode (Sep 04), David O'Brien said: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > [...] > > > The patch is not a problem (attached). I've been looking at how > > > our friends do this. NetBSD has symlinks in /usr/lib to /lib, > > > both to .so and .so.X, and their cc(1) and ld(1) don't look > > > things in /lib. Linux looks things up in both /lib and /usr/lib, > > > and does not have symlinks from /usr/lib to /lib. > > > > > There is a sad typo above: Linux *does* have symlinks from /usr/lib > > to /lib, so both use /usr/lib for linking. > > What version of Linux are you using? SuSE Enterprise Linux 8, and > Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 both do not have symlinks for libs from > /usr/lib to /lib. They use a different machanism: I haven't updated in a while, but my Debian unstable box has .. $ find /usr/lib/*.so -type l -ls | grep "> /lib" | wc -l 24 .. symlinks back to /lib. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /lib/foo.so.X -> /usr/lib/foo.so
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > [...] > > The patch is not a problem (attached). I've been looking at > > how our friends do this. NetBSD has symlinks in /usr/lib to > > /lib, both to .so and .so.X, and their cc(1) and ld(1) don't > > look things in /lib. Linux looks things up in both /lib and > > /usr/lib, and does not have symlinks from /usr/lib to /lib. > > > There is a sad typo above: Linux *does* have symlinks from > /usr/lib to /lib, so both use /usr/lib for linking. What version of Linux are you using? SuSE Enterprise Linux 8, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 both do not have symlinks for libs from /usr/lib to /lib. They use a different machanism: suse# cat /usr/lib/libc.so /* GNU ld script Use the shared library, but some functions are only in the static library, so try that secondarily. */ GROUP ( /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a ) > Not that I'm completely happy with introducing yet another > variable in bsd.lib.mk, but the attached patch: > > - Leaves only one set of .so symlinks in /usr/lib. > > Benefits: all other systems that use both /lib and /usr/lib > (that I've been able to test) have .so links in /usr/lib > only, and use them for linking; GCC in ports will like this > better. > > - Uses absolute paths in .so symlinks. > > Benefit: works for people who have their /usr symlinked > somewhere. A true benefit. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
/lib/foo.so.X -> /usr/lib/foo.so
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
[...]
> The patch is not a problem (attached). I've been looking at
> how our friends do this. NetBSD has symlinks in /usr/lib to
> /lib, both to .so and .so.X, and their cc(1) and ld(1) don't
> look things in /lib. Linux looks things up in both /lib and
> /usr/lib, and does not have symlinks from /usr/lib to /lib.
>
There is a sad typo above: Linux *does* have symlinks from
/usr/lib to /lib, so both use /usr/lib for linking.
> The only reason while I still think we should support both
> /lib and /usr/lib in cc(1) and ld(1) by default is to allow
> our users to have /usr symlinked somethere, otherwise relative
> symlinking from /usr/lib to ../../lib does not work, and we
> are back to that endless thread.
>
Not that I'm completely happy with introducing yet another
variable in bsd.lib.mk, but the attached patch:
- Leaves only one set of .so symlinks in /usr/lib.
Benefits: all other systems that use both /lib and /usr/lib
(that I've been able to test) have .so links in /usr/lib
only, and use them for linking; GCC in ports will like this
better.
- Uses absolute paths in .so symlinks.
Benefit: works for people who have their /usr symlinked
somewhere.
- Works without any more modifications to GCC. ld(1)
hacks can go away too.
Please review.
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software Ltd,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer
Index: Makefile.inc1
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/Makefile.inc1,v
retrieving revision 1.389
diff -u -r1.389 Makefile.inc1
--- Makefile.inc1 1 Sep 2003 06:43:24 - 1.389
+++ Makefile.inc1 4 Sep 2003 19:30:19 -
@@ -227,6 +227,7 @@
# world stage
WMAKEENV= ${CROSSENV} \
DESTDIR=${WORLDTMP} \
+ SHLIBDIRPREFIX=${WORLDTMP} \
INSTALL="sh ${.CURDIR}/tools/install.sh" \
PATH=${TMPPATH}
WMAKE= ${WMAKEENV} ${MAKE} -f Makefile.inc1
Index: share/mk/bsd.lib.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/mk/bsd.lib.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.153
diff -u -r1.153 bsd.lib.mk
--- share/mk/bsd.lib.mk 4 Sep 2003 04:29:11 - 1.153
+++ share/mk/bsd.lib.mk 4 Sep 2003 19:34:08 -
@@ -208,9 +208,10 @@
${_INSTALLFLAGS} ${_SHLINSTALLFLAGS} \
${SHLIB_NAME} ${DESTDIR}${SHLIBDIR}
.if defined(SHLIB_LINK)
- ln -fs ${SHLIB_NAME} ${DESTDIR}${SHLIBDIR}/${SHLIB_LINK}
-.if (${LIBDIR} != ${SHLIBDIR})
- ln -fs ${LIBDIR:C|/[^/]+|/..|g:S|^/||}${SHLIBDIR}/${SHLIB_NAME} \
+.if ${SHLIBDIR} == ${LIBDIR}
+ ln -fs ${SHLIB_NAME} ${DESTDIR}${LIBDIR}/${SHLIB_LINK}
+.else
+ ln -fs ${SHLIBDIRPREFIX}${SHLIBDIR}/${SHLIB_NAME} \
${DESTDIR}${LIBDIR}/${SHLIB_LINK}
.endif
.endif
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
