[Clfs-support] CLFS support

Andrew Bradford andrew at bradfordembedded.com
Wed Feb 12 05:16:32 PST 2014

On 02/11/2014 04:48 PM, Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote:

>> 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 ?

I'm not sure, actually, since ldconfig is passed the '-n' switch which
will only affect the directory given and not others.

It's worth trying, though.  I'm sorry but I'm not sure I'll have time to
work on it this week, but if you find out some solutions and can let me
know I can modify the book (or I'm always willing to accept patches to
the book).


More information about the Clfs-support mailing list