[Clfs-support] CLFS support

Kevyn-Alexandre Paré kapare at rogue-research.com
Tue Feb 11 13:48:09 PST 2014


>> 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 ?



More information about the Clfs-support mailing list