John Plocher wrote: > Why > >> usr/gnu/bin/ar >> usr/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin/ar=../../bin/ar > > instead of > >> usr/gnu/bin/ar=./i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin/ar >> usr/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin/ar > > (i.e., have the symlinks point to the more tightly versioned instance) > > I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I wanted to note that at > some point in the future you may wish to upgrade from > usr/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.11 to usr/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.12, and the > current scheme doesn't play as well in that scenario...
The build actually produces hard links so it doesn't help much on deciding which way softlinks should point. SuSE sets up the links the same way we propose. Is there any trade off between links versus binaries in the most commonly accessed location, i.e. I expect /usr/gnu/bin/as to be be the preferred path. That is the path the compiler will use for example. Thanks, George > > > -John
