[Clfs-support] CLFS support

Kevyn-Alexandre Paré kapare at rogue-research.com
Tue Feb 11 12:56:00 PST 2014


> Possibly by using the '-X' switch to ldconfig, then the symlink won't be
> removed.  But I believe this will mean patching gcc, but a quick check
> means up to 212 times ldconfig can be called from gcc install and that
> seems silly to patch all of them.  Or does it?

It seem silly and this problem should have been solved in other libc?!
Looking at ulibc and glibc Makefile I don't see the direct same way as
musl so I will need to run and make more test to see the diff...

> Would it be better to simply patch musl to have the symlink be relative
> instead of absolute?  Although that's a better question for the musl ml
> I think as I'm sure there's a good reason it's absolute...

Let's ask them!

> Sorry I don't have any solution right now.  I thought this was working
> well but apparently what ever my machine configuration was when I made
> the edits to add musl meant that ldconfig wasn't doing what it does on
> stock Debian Wheezy.  That's unfortunate.

Did you retest the script you have to see if this was happening also?
There something to learn from that problem and we will found the best
solution to fit our needs ;)



More information about the Clfs-support mailing list