[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#259302: Patch update against base-files 3.1

On 04-Dec-05 01:18, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:50:31 +0100,
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > 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).

The symlink "ln -sf /lib /lib64" is currently created by the 
'base-files' package. I tried to patch 'glibc' to create that symlink,
because I think it should be created by 'glibc' if possible. 
Logically, it belongs to 'glibc' IMHO.

However, I had severe problems with 'glibc' upgrades when the '/lib64' 
symlink was created by 'glibc' instead of 'base-files'. 
Basically, everything stopped working during the upgrade because 
the '/lib64' temporarily disappeared and the binaries could not 
find the dynamic linker anymore.

The '/usr/lib64' symlink is not a problem. It would be nice to have that
also in 'glibc' instead of 'base-files'. On the other hand '/usr/lib64'
is not really necessary. The 'amd64/gcc-3.4' does not have a 
'/usr/lib64' at all at the moment and everything works without that 

Andreas Jochens

Reply to: