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. On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:39:15AM -0800, Robert S. Dubinski wrote: > > The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard document version 2.3 of the Linux > Standard Base project (http://www.linuxbase.org/) lists the following: > > " > usr/include : Header files included by C programs > These symbolic links are required if a C or C++ compiler is installed > and only for systems not based on glibc. > > /usr/include/asm -> /usr/src/linux/include/asm-<arch> > /usr/include/linux -> /usr/src/linux/include/linux > " > > I read this as saying if you're using glibc at all you should no longer > have or use the symlinks. Most modern distributions will both be using > glibc and striving for LSB/FHS compliance. (I'm pretty sure if you dig > around you'll find older PRs from RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake/Debian regarding > LSB 1.0 compliance). > > > > -Robert >
