On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 10:10:49PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 05:52:24PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > > I might be missing an obvious, but I just don't see a reason
> > > > why we should use relative linking here: we should just link
> > > > to where we really install. With the attached patch, I get:
> ...
> > +.if ${LIBDIR} != ${SHLIBDIR}
> > + ln -fs ${SHLIBDIR}/${SHLIB_NAME} ${DESTDIR}${LIBDIR}/${SHLIB_LINK}
>
> Why are we making *any* symlinks here??
>
: revision 1.150
: date: 2003/08/17 23:56:29; author: gordon; state: Exp; lines: +2 -3
: When creating .so symlinks, use SHLIBDIR instead of LIBDIR so symlinks
: are created in the correct location. Always make them. For libraries
: that live in /lib, this causes a /lib/libfoo.so and a compatibility
: /usr/lib/libfoo.so to be created. We may want to drop the
: /usr/lib/libfoo.so symlink at some future point.I think that Gordon took a safe path with creating compatibility symlinks. Besides, creating compatibility symlinks has a nicety of removing your stale symlinks in /usr/lib. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software Ltd, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
