This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Support installing headers for bootstrapping libgcc
- From: Nix <nix at esperi dot org dot uk>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 19:54:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: Support installing headers for bootstrapping libgcc
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1203081626150.13862@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><20120309190400.552E82C0A7@topped-with-meat.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1203092003130.16963@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><20120323000616.32F372C08D@topped-with-meat.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1205111338290.15136@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><20120511183752.0B1112C0BE@topped-with-meat.com>
On 11 May 2012, Roland McGrath stated:
> I think we can just get rid of sln entirely at this point. We really
> don't expect anybody to be able to run 'make install' directly on a
> live system and not ruin all sorts of things that might be needed
> somewhere in the process. So why should ln be different?
You might well break various glibc postinstall scripts if you do that.
(You'll certainly break mine, though I don't like sln(1) either.)
Of course fixing these scripts is trivial -- make the symlink before
moving things out of the installed DESTDIR -- but you probably want to
mention such a removal in NEWS before anyone fouls up their systems as a
result.
> That leaves only ldconfig, which is statically-linked for a much more
> defensible reason.
Yep.
--
NULL && (void)