[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130817123913.771df1d0@vostro>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:39:13 +0300
From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: dalias@...ifal.cx
Subject: Re: Progress on roadmap to 0.9.13
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:59:12 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> One key target for 0.9.13 which I didn't cover above is improving
> "make install" and possibly tweaking the symlink strategy for libc.so
> and ld-musl.so. At several times in the past, I was fairly convinced
> that it makes more sense to reverse the symlink direction and have
> libc.so point to ld-musl.so rather than the other way around. However,
> I keep going back to doubting that there's any good reason for it to
> change. So if there are people who still care about this issue, I'd
> really like to hear you speak up _now_ rather than 2 days before the
> next release, or after the next release. If there's no progress on
> justifying changes, I think the only changes I'm going to make in this
> area are to fix lack-of-atomicity issues during installation.
Sorry for late answer.
IIRC the advantages were:
- Easier to install different subarch (even compatible arch versions)
side by side. As ld.so names are unique - libc.so is same for all so
those would need to be renamed anyway.
- libc.so and libc.a can go to /usr/lib if libc.so is just an
optional symlink. this is desirable as the development stuff are not
nice to keep in /lib.
So I would at least like to have the symlink direction changed.
Or alternatively have something like:
/lib/libc-arch.so.<abiver>
/lib/ld-musl-<arch>.so.1 -> libc-arch.so.<abiver
/usr/lib/libc.so -> /lib/libc.so.<abiver>
/usr/lib/libc.a
Allowing of course /usr/lib to be a toolchain specific prefix.
- Timo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
