Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:57:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: nik@iii.co.uk, Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@FreeBSD.ORG>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 Schedule, ELF and CAM Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9808131456070.249-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <199808120130.LAA22961@cain.gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > one is the current default on the system. > > This is probably a frighteningly bad idea, but every time I've mentioned > > it on -hackers or -current, no one's stood up to say so. > That's a bit limiting.. > Since you can use both types of libs, why limit youself? > I would think that in most cases ldconfig /usr/lib/<format of choice> > would be a better solution. What I noticed when I first started messing with Debian was that the compiler was setup as if it was a cross compiler by default, meaning that /usr/lib was IIRC, a link to /usr/i386-gnu-linux or something similar. Why not do something like this? It seems a bit easier to manage, no need to create special names or anything. - alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.00.9808131456070.249-100000>