Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 06:15:39PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been looking at libraries in /lib on my new system and have some
>> issues I'd like to discuss. To start, I'll give a few definitions:
>>
> [ snipped, probably too much, but I'm denying that there is a
> problem :) ]
>
> What is the problem ? On my most recent build I have the following
> in /lib :
>
> .so from libproc,
Yes, that's a realname:
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 56284 Jun 15 20:57 /lib/libproc-3.2.8.so
libudev [ both LFS - I was fiddling with a
> udev-fromsystemd build, but I *hope* you also have /lib/libudev :) ]
> and libcap, libnfsidmap, libtirpc, and the now-deprecated libwrap.
>
> .la from libkmod, liblzma [ both LFS ], libnfsidmap and libtirpc.
> So, you have pcre in /lib - perhaps I build it differently. For
> the libs which are from LFS this is not the right place to discuss
> moving them, but I think that there is no point discussing that
> unless you can point to a problem with the current locations.
I realized that some of these are from LFS. If we decide to change, it
would need to be updated too.
One of the points I tried to make was that it does not affect building
or running the programs. gcc/ld automatically search /lib and ld.so
does also.
The question was a bit more subtle. Is it OK to put things only needed
for building in /lib? Historically, that location was only for the
minimum needed to get critical programs running at boot time before /usr
was mounted.
So it doesn't make a practical difference. It's sort of an "artistic"
(for lack of a better word) thing that certain files should be in
'standard' locations. The reason I brought it up is just that the file
locations don't feel right to me.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
