On 20-12-16 21:56, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Frans de Boer wrote:
Hi all,
I just noticed that there are changes in the development version of LFS,
related to x86_64 architecture. But i do miss the rationale and/or more
explanation. The latter is important because I see several changes which
make sense, but misses other related changes in various other packages.
Also having now /lib64 as a directory instead of a link puzzles me. The
more because /lib is still a directory and not a link to /lib64 as per
FHS
3.0.
Where does FHS 3.0 say a symlink is required?
What additional explanation would you suggest and where should it be?
Looking at the FHS 3.0 documentation does not help either since the new
LFS directory structure seems to be a non-consistent mix of various
possibilities. See above and next example: /usr/lib with redundant link
/usr/lib64.
4.8. /usr/lib<qual> : Alternate format libraries (optional)
does not seem to require /usr/lib64.
-- Bruce
Footnote 13 makes an implicit reference to it. But I admit, it's not a
very strong point.
However, it seems not consistent to have /usr/lib and in the root
/lib64. Use of qualifiers is - as I read it - only meant to be use by
multi-library systems, which LFS explicitly states currently that it is not.
Also, I never implied that having /lib64 does require /usr/lib64 -
simply because there is no hard relation between them or their content.
It's just what I stated above, inconsistent use of qualifiers.
By the way: Having /lib64 and /usr/lib64 as links to their respective
lib directory make sense only when using third party (binary) packages.
Finally on the matter of explanation: sure, I can write one and find a
place to put it up. But we first need to get into the "inconsistency"
issue to be able to make a coherent and justifiable explanation.
--- Frans.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
