Re: /lib symlinks problem?

In message: <20030901023511.L3776_at_znfgre.qbhto.arg>
            Doug Barton <DougB_at_freebsd.org> writes:
: On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
: 
: > > I posted one approach to this today... touch a file right before you
: > > start installworld, then consider anything not newer than that file a
: > > candidate for disposal. There is currently something weird going on in
: > > /usr/lib though... a lot of the files don't have newer dates, I haven't
: > > tracked down why yet.
: > >
: > This is because static libraries are installed with -C.  The reasoning
: > was like this:
: >
: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 02:15:56PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
: > > Ruslan Ermilov <ru_at_FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:28:17PM -0800, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
: > > > >   Log:
: > > > >   Install static and profiled libraries with -C.
: > > > Um why, what's so special about them?
: > >
: > > They appear in dependency lists.  This was discussed on -arch.
: 
: Can you fill in a little more detail here? I really prefer the old
: behavior, not using -C.
: 
: > This also will not work for anything that has not changed and is
: > installed with -C, that is includes,
: 
: I posted my script to -current just today. I 'mv include include-old' to
: handle this. I also blow away /usr/share/man, since creating it from
: scratch is just as easy as trying to cleanse it.
: 
: > rtld-elf, and some parts of /sys/boot.
: 
: I haven't touched /boot yet, I'm not that brave. :) There are a couple
: other things that my script doesn't handle just on the basis of "newer
: than," but as a proof of concept it's quite functional.

The mv /usr/foo -> /usr/foo.old is too dangerous, and I think it is
the wrong way to go.

Warner