Bug#259302: Patch update against base-files 3.1
At Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:50:31 +0100,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>
> >> > Conclusion:
> >> >
> >> > - I would like to see those links in sarge (for amd64 only, no change
> >> > for other archs) since they are currently essential for amd64 (glibc
> >> > relies on it). What package provides them is no that important. In
> >> > base-files it is realy simple to do so.
> >> >
> >> > - If the links are split out of base-files into other debs and those
> >> > don't make it to sarge I would still rather patch base-files for
> >> > sarge amd64 before I touch anything else. It is the simplest place
> >> > to put them.
> >>
> >> My conclusion: As the symlinks will not be there forever, it's glibc
> >> who relies on them, and there might be potential problems at the time
> >> of removing them if they are not in the same package as the dynamic
> >> linker or libc6, I consider the glibc package should be the one to
> >> manage the symlinks.
> >
> > Looking at the patch, there're two symlinks: /lib64 and
> > /usr/X11R6/lib64. We don't touch /usr/X11R6 in libc6.
>
> 3: /lib, /usr/lib and /usr/X11R6/lib.
>
> The /lib64 -> /lib link is essential for the ld to be found and as
> Santagio says glibc should take care of it.
>
> The other two links are more a convenience so less software has to be
> patched. Since glibc also puts things in /usr/lib it could take care
> of that link too. The X11R6 link could possibly come from X11 itself
> but currently it comes from the amd64 patched base-files.
>
> If you want to take care of all 3 links in glibc that would be fine.
Yes, /lib64 and /usr/lib64 are OK.
However, I think glibc shouldn't take care of /usr/X11R6/lib64,
because I think /usr/X11R6 directory should be managed by X11
packages.
Note that we should be careful about glibc shlib version and /lib64.
If we want to use /lib64 instead of /lib in future as biarch/multiarch
support, glibc shlib should be bumped up, and all packages that
distinguish /lib and /lib64 should depend on the newer shlib glibc.
Because /lib and /lib64 are separated at that version, and
hand-writing "Depends: libc6 (>= ...)" makes mistakes for some
packages (think about number of packages that depend on libc6). So,
symlinking /lib64 under glibc has the risk: "bump up shlib versions".
It affects all binary packages on all architectures. It's sure we
don't need to worry about this problem until biarch/multiarch support.
> > Andreas, is it nice to symlink from /lib to /lib64 ? I agree we have
> > /lib64 on amd64.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -- gotom
>
> Currently lib64 links to lib and reversing that link would mean
> rebuilding every library package because otherwise dpkg-shlibs won't
> work. It would mean patching every lib package to build for lib64
> instead of the current lib to get correct *.la files and dpkgs *.files
> info.
>
> So please don't reverse that link, it would destroy everything we
> worked for.
No problem, I have no intension to link reversely. I mean "ln -sf
/lib /lib64", in this case source (= from) is /lib, to is /lib64, see
ln (1).
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: