Re: <foo> link with -L/usr/lib
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> YunQiang Su, le Tue 17 Sep 2013 19:06:54 +0800, a écrit :
>> I am shutdowning the wrong bugs.
> You mean only the wrong bugs, not completely all of them? If your
> program had troubles submitting the right ones, I'm afraid it will have
> troubles closing the wrong ones. Just close all of them and submit your
> program here with rationale before starting it.
There is about 200 true bugs report, while another about 300 is invaild
> Also, I'm really unconvinced -L/usr/lib does really bring any problem
> anyway, see what I wrote:
Yes, we can talk about it here.
Say sorry again.
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Samuel Thibault <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > which will make it ftbfs if there is libraries under /usr/lib,
>> > while is not the default architecture, mips* for example.
>> > On mips* systems, /usr/lib is defined as place to hold O32
>> > libraries, and /usr/lib32 for N32, and /usr/lib64 is for N64.
>> That's not necessarily a problem: a spurious -L/usr/lib does not hurt,
>> the linker will simply not take the binaries. It's only if -L/usr/lib
>> is required for proper linking that it would be a problem. But the
>> compiler already has that in its search path, so there is really no
>> > Beside the way, on the multiarch system like Debian, user may install
>> > libraries under /usr/lib by hand.
>> No, they are not supposed to be doing that.