Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: None <>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/27/2002 12:56:43
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 11:43:09AM +0900, 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/, not /lib/
  | 	- only those binaries in / partition (/sbin/ping) will link against
  | 	  /lib/, not /usr/lib/
  | 	am i correct?

no. if SHLIBDIR != /usr/lib, the rpath of dynamic programs is set to

the symlink from /usr/lib/ -> ${SHLIBDIR}/
is for old shared applications.

  | 	even if /usr/lib/ 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.