Re: [PATCH] sln: Install as a hard link to ldconfig

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

On 21/07/2016 03:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2016 21:23, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On 2016-07-20 17:19, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> I assumed it was intended as a recovery tool if something is wrong with the
>>>> DSO symbolic links, which is why I preserved it.  On the other hand, in this
>>>> day and age, systems will certainly not boot if simple binaries like ln cannot
>>>> run, and the system administrator will not be able to log in, so such recovery
>>>> actions appear rather unrealistic without the help of a rescue system.
>>>
>>> I think sln / static ldconfig are recovery tools for *when already logged 
>>> in* (and having just made a mistake with the links).
>>
>> I agree about that for ldconfig. Now I do wonder if it is the job of
>> the libc to provide sln, when alternatives like a statically linked
>> busybox can recover from many more breakages.
> 
> agreed -- i think sln should die
> -mike
> 

Same, nowadays distros can provide better alternatives.