On 2019.06.19 16:14, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:26:50 -0400, Jack wrote:
> On 2019.06.19 14:10, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:45:03 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> >
> > > wifi ~ # unsymlink-lib --analyze
> > > /usr/lib needs to be a symlink to lib64!
> > > wifi ~ # ls -al /usr/lib
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 4 13:37 /usr/lib -> /usr/lib64
> > > wifi ~ #
> > >
> > > The symlink looks the same as another unconverted system - so
> > > whats
> > the
> > > problem?
> >
> > On this system, /usr/lib is a symlink to lib64, as the message
states,
> > not /usr/lib64
> >
> > % ls -ld /usr/lib
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 5 Jul 16 2015 /usr/lib -> lib64
> Ah, I think we've gotten to a bad splitting of hairs. /usr/lib ->
> lib64 and /usr/lib -> /usr/lib64 have the same effect, but are not
> quite the same. The first is a relative symlink, the second is
> absolute, although both actually point to the same place.
That's what software does, it interprets things literally. It is
looking
for a symlink to lib64 and finding something else. The fact that the
actual link is equivalent is also irrelevant.
Agreed, but in this case, it is the end outcome which really matters,
so I would consider that an inadequacy (not sure whether it quite
counts as a bug) in the script. It won't help the OP much, but filing
a bug against unsymlink-lib might get acted on. It is also possible to
file an issue against it in its github repository.
