Bug#325226: libc6: Wrong dynamic linker on amd64
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:48:21PM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> your solution looks indeed nicer that the "patch to the patch" to fix
> the linker path.
>
> However, there is one (probably not really important) thing
> which I do not like:
>
> The patch will cause a lot of symlinks which currently point from
> '/usr/lib/lib*.so.*' to '/lib/lib*.so.*' to be changed to point
> to '/lib64/lib*.so.*' instead, e.g.
>
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Feb 8 05:58 librt.so -> /lib/librt.so.1
>
> would become
>
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Feb 8 05:58 librt.so -> /lib64/librt.so.1
Oh, I haven't thought of that. I tested the resulting binary, but I
haven't looked at the links.
> Currently, the /lib64 directory symlink is used _only_ to provide the
> correct linker path. Nothing else in the distribution references
> the /lib64 directory, i.e. everything is (or at least should
> be) installed in /lib and nothing depends on the /lib64 symlink
> with the single exception of the linker path.
That let me ask about having /lib64 as the real directory, and /lib as
a symlink. At least it would make the /lib64 directory compliant with
the FHS.
Do you know what kind of problem that could cause, other than a complex
upgrade?
> I think it would be good to keep it that way and to let the symlinks
> point to '/lib/lib*.so.*' as they do now.
> Do you perhaps know of a simple way to achive this within your approach?
I think that's possible, I'll try do find a solution.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Reply to: