Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: None <itojun@iijlab.net>
From: Luke Mewburn <lukem@wasabisystems.com>
List: current-users
Date: 08/27/2002 12:56:43
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 11:43:09AM +0900, itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
| > | > I'm not sure about what is the right thing for people using binary
| > | > snapshot or "make build", though. I guess perhaps the extra labor
| > | > may be acceptable for those people.
| > | I guess something like etc/postinstall can list up obsolete libraries
| > | and suggest user to move them.
| >This is a good idea.
| >An extension of this is to find "obsolete" minor library versions
| >(in /usr/lib and /lib) to suggest for removal. Something to consider...
|
| just checking:
| - normal binaries (like /usr/bin/vi, for instance) will link against
| /usr/lib/libc.so, not /lib/libc.so.
| - only those binaries in / partition (/sbin/ping) will link against
| /lib/libc.so, not /usr/lib/libc.so.
| am i correct?
no. if SHLIBDIR != /usr/lib, the rpath of dynamic programs is set to
${SHLIBDIR}:/usr/lib
the symlink from /usr/lib/libfoo.so -> ${SHLIBDIR}/libfoo.so
is for old shared applications.
| even if /usr/lib/libc.so is a symlink, i think the above is an
| important point. think of shlib major bump (in libtermcap or whatever)
| and old binaries in /usr/pkg/bin.
this isn't a problem. i've run a converted system for a while, and
old applications (with just /usr/lib in the rpath) work ok.