Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/2002 11:43:09
> | > 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...
- 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?
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.