Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:00:23 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks Message-ID: <476494C7.6090808@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <4762FA4E.9040103@FreeBSD.org> References: <1196470143.4750af7f6accf@webmail.rawbw.com> <4752F825.8020505@chuckr.org> <20071203144159.irjelm2c0c8o8csw@webmail.leidinger.net> <47544B5A.9080903@chuckr.org> <20071205122123.phwu6uh7jksgcwk8@webmail.leidinger.net> <4760A7FE.9070409@chuckr.org> <20071213100821.bet532peog8g488s@webmail.leidinger.net> <4762989F.9070507@FreeBSD.org> <4762DEEA.2070703@chuckr.org> <4762FA4E.9040103@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex Dupre wrote: > Chuck Robey wrote: >> I guess I might be wrong, but I have to say, wrapping everything really >> does seem to me to be the hack. > > Call it a wrapper, call it a symlink, but it seems to me that you don't > like linux libs in LOCALBASE *and* you don't like executable references > in LOCALBASE (and these are the only two possibilities exposed by > Alexander). I prefer the wrapper/symlink, because I think all linux > stuff should be in /compat/linux. What do you propose, instead? > (Until tomorrow, I won't be able to get my mail fixed to the point that my mail will get thru to hackers, but I will send this anyhow, in the hopes that maybe ...) I'm sorry if I was not clear, I wish to do what hier(7) seems to be telling me. to put all linux executeables into the compat tree, into /compat, which is a symlink to /usr/compat, and underneath there, the correct name for each executable type, in this case into /compat/linux. For example, llibraries would go into /compat/linux/usr/lib (realize that most Linux software ignores /usr/local/, I don't care for that, but if it's restricted to happening in /compat/linux then it's acceptable to me at least). This makes for a single name that needs to go into linux's ldconfig list instread of the mess that's mismanaged now, and an equally simple setup for the linux PATH. Easy was to segrregate all binaries, by their arch, nice and predictable, not needing to be extended for each new library. This just seems like an obvioous thing to me, I'm sorry if I let that make me skip details. No use oif LOCALBASE or LINUXBASE, unless you wanted to define LINUXBASE to be "linux" and then vector things into /compat/$(LINUXBASE), something like that would make sense. But no use of LOCALBASE. > -- > Alex Dupre > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?476494C7.6090808>