From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 4 14:19:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E1716A4BF; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3F943F93; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:19:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h84LJTV9017880; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:19:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:19:29 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: "David O'Brien" , Ruslan Ermilov , Gordon Tetlow , Peter Wemm , current@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20030904211929.GA39916@dan.emsphone.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> <20030904202715.GD4481@sunbay.com> <20030904211050.GA3035@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030904211050.GA3035@dragon.nuxi.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: /lib/foo.so.X -> /usr/lib/foo.so X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:19:34 -0000 In the last episode (Sep 04), David O'Brien said: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > [...] > > > 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. > > > > > There is a sad typo above: Linux *does* have symlinks from /usr/lib > > to /lib, so both use /usr/lib for linking. > > What version of Linux are you using? SuSE Enterprise Linux 8, and > Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 both do not have symlinks for libs from > /usr/lib to /lib. They use a different machanism: I haven't updated in a while, but my Debian unstable box has .. $ find /usr/lib/*.so -type l -ls | grep "> /lib" | wc -l 24 .. symlinks back to /lib. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com