[Clfs-support] CLFS support

[Kevyn-Alexandre Paré]

Andrew,

>> 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...
>
> Other libc use a separate ld and libc, so they don't have this problem.
>  musl uses one file, libc.so, as both tasks and it determines which way
> it's being used.

I thought they where not the only one to do that ... thx for explaining.

>
> ldconfig is making a mostly sane assumption that symlinks within lib
> dirs which don't go anywhere should be removed as they're likely left
> over from old libs which are not installed anymore.  Usually this is not
> a bad thing to do.
>
>>> 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!
>
> The reason is that you may have a different syslibdir and libdir.  What
> musl is doing is the right way for them, just annoying for us.
>

So if syslibdir and libdir were differnt will we have the same problem
with gcc ?

thx,

-KA