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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
