Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:17:35 -0700 From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.lib.mk Message-ID: <20030904201735.GZ695@roark.gnf.org> In-Reply-To: <20030904185839.GB4481@sunbay.com> References: <200309040429.h844TBhD058678@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030904083617.GA56261@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030904092755.GD45051@sunbay.com> <20030904140129.GA61909@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030904155659.GC97732@sunbay.com> <20030904162656.GA396@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030904174100.GY695@roark.gnf.org> <20030904185839.GB4481@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--4ewN61DNRuNLc83n Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:41:00AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:26:56AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:56:59PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > Sure. The fix is to make ``cc --print-search-dirs'' output include > > > > the /lib directory too. =20 > > >=20 > > > That is trival. > > >=20 > > > > I'm currently testing some patches with bsd.lib.mk,v 1.152. > > >=20 > > > We should all agree on where the symlink for things like libc.so.X li= ve. > > > I'm 99% sure Peter will argue /usr/lib, and I personally don't care -= - I > > > just want one of them. Before commiting yet something else to > > > bsd.lib.mk, what direction are you going in? > >=20 > > It is much more appealing to me to put everything that is needed for a = build > > into /usr/lib. /lib should only have enough to get us up and running, n= ot > > enough to get us compiling, that's what /usr/lib is for. I have a patch > > that will do what we want, I'll see if I can dig it up. > >=20 > The patch is not a problem (attached). I've been looking at > how our friends do this. NetBSD has symlinks in /usr/lib to > /lib, both to .so and .so.X, and their cc(1) and ld(1) don't > look things in /lib. Linux looks things up in both /lib and > /usr/lib, and does not have symlinks from /usr/lib to /lib. >=20 > We can implement either (I already have all the necessary > patches), so the question is which one do we really want. >=20 > The only reason while I still think we should support both > /lib and /usr/lib in cc(1) and ld(1) by default is to allow > our users to have /usr symlinked somethere, otherwise relative > symlinking from /usr/lib to ../../lib does not work, and we > are back to that endless thread. BTW, NetBSD uses absolute > paths in symlinks from /usr/lib to /lib: If you can fix the symlinks to DTRT in regards to build-tools, I'm all for absolute symlinks. I just didn't know how to do it. If we do this plan, we also gain compatibility with NetBSD which is a nice bonus. -gordon --4ewN61DNRuNLc83n Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/V53fRu2t9DV9ZfsRAlIrAKCUDOAhmEHmOBCgOdq762xEehteGwCeNXFb eSuakHpxDFWWOJLSjl5mRQU= =lyuy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4ewN61DNRuNLc83n--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030904201735.GZ695>