Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:05:11 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/72138: libc.so.5 isn't installed in a safe way Message-ID: <m3d606gw8o.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <20040928153537.GA3185@frontfree.net> (Xin LI's message of "Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:35:37 %2B0800") References: <20040927224353.845381B217@merlin.emma.line.org> <20040928043351.GA2400@frontfree.net> <20040928071758.GB14942@ip.net.ua> <m31xgmzt34.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <20040928153537.GA3185@frontfree.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> writes: > So I personally prefer we have -S for the shared libraries (as Ruslan's > patch did) - and give our user community the choose of whether to have > INSTALL=install -S in their make.conf. > > What do you think about this? It is important that a failing "make installworld" doesn't leave a non-working system behind. I don't care much about temporary files left over. -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3d606gw8o.fsf>