On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:44:24AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 10:10:49PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 05:52:24PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > I might be missing an obvious, but I just don't see a reason > > > > > why we should use relative linking here: we should just link > > > > > to where we really install. With the attached patch, I get: > > ... > > > +.if ${LIBDIR} != ${SHLIBDIR} > > > + ln -fs ${SHLIBDIR}/${SHLIB_NAME} ${DESTDIR}${LIBDIR}/${SHLIB_LINK} > > > > Why are we making *any* symlinks here?? > > > : revision 1.150 > : date: 2003/08/17 23:56:29; author: gordon; state: Exp; lines: +2 -3 > : When creating .so symlinks, use SHLIBDIR instead of LIBDIR so symlinks > : are created in the correct location. Always make them. For libraries > : that live in /lib, this causes a /lib/libfoo.so and a compatibility > : /usr/lib/libfoo.so to be created. We may want to drop the > : /usr/lib/libfoo.so symlink at some future point. > > I think that Gordon took a safe path with creating compatibility symlinks. > Besides, creating compatibility symlinks has a nicety of removing your > stale symlinks in /usr/lib. Reguardless, I think we should just not have the compatibility symlinks. I can't think of anything that really uses them. -- -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)Received on Mon Sep 01 2003 - 07:31:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:21 UTC