Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:17:00 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>, Jonathan Anderson <jonathan.anderson@ieee.org> Subject: Re: /usr/lib/private Message-ID: <201309061017.00306.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130905100058.GR41229@kib.kiev.ua> References: <86zjrut4an.fsf@nine.des.no> <CAMGEAwByA5ewSD=5nO4GyYdnAEWyJgczQsb_eOUAScMLcfJRJQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130905100058.GR41229@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, September 05, 2013 6:00:58 am Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 08:41:29AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote: > > Is there any reason not to make it /private/usr/lib (or > > /private/usr/lib/platform)? I could see us wanting a /private/usr/include > > in the future for e.g. LLVM/Clang headers that things in base (e.g. > > lldb) might use but whose stability we don't want to be responsible for. > > > The libraries (and headers) are not needed in the single-user mode, and > we are still trying to maintain the / and /usr split. Would /usr/private/lib work without requiring rtld changes? Looks like it would not. However, you could install a stock /etc/libmap32.conf that mapped /usr/lib/private or /usr/private/lib to the relevant 32-bit path. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201309061017.00306.jhb>