On Tue 27 January 2004 21:41, Robert S. Dubinski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:10:42PM -0500, Ambrose Li wrote: > > Yes, myself is to blame for not checking the updated FHS. But > > why would anyone upgrading from libc5 to libc6 suspect that a > > change in the FHS should affect the upgrade (esp. if the libc6 > > docs do not refer to the FHS)? > > > > So my main complaint will be that I'll need to "dig around" > > per se, in unknown places for random upgrades. If upgrading to > > libc6 means I should rm the symlink, the libc6 docs should > > point this out, or at least refer me to the LHS. I didn't see > > either when I did the upgrade. > > The standard response to that is, "Leave it to your friendly > distribution vendor to take care of". > > If you're interested in upgrading libc yourself, then you're > usually at the point of rolling your own distribution, and might > want to concern yourself with LSB/FHS. > > Yeah, locating all these docs can be a bear, but if you don't do > things by hand and instead use a major distribution vendor, you > really shouldn't have to worry.
But how is the vendor supposed to know that GNU libc6 requires the files to be oriented according to the FHS? That should be in the glibc docs, period. Lourens -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
