Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:41:52AM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Just because the build does it one way doesn't mean we need to package
> it the same way (but yes, if you're in an OS/Net-like gate it's hard to
> change those hardlinks to symlinks).
Correct. Sorry, my use of "build" above may have been unclear. I meant
the standard Gnu make install invoked on vanilla Gnu source. In our
package, we replace the hardlinks produced by the Gnu "make install"
step with softlinks leaving one copy each of the actual binaries.
I interrupted John's question to mean where should the actual binary reside.
>
> I second John's point.
>
>> 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.
>
> John's point relates to how updates will work.
Each new release of binutils will completely replace the previous
release. There will be no co-existence of multiple versions. I tried
to say that in my cover letter sent out last Friday:
2) Binutils will be installed directly into /usr/bin
with no versioning.
We have the recent change that /usr/bin will now be /usr/gnu/bin but we
still plan for no versioning of binutils.
Maybe I need to add some additional text to clarify that point somewhere
in the case.
Thanks,
George
