--OwXh6gFRjCd3qPCM
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   Content-Disposition: inline
   
   On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 07:26:00PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
     | apparently it's faster to use /lib than ../../lib (not all of /lib moved).
     | 
     | i'd prefer the /usr/lib symlinks to /lib used relative symlinks, as this
     | problem has caused multiple issues for multiple people...
   
   How about we do this:
       *	use absolute symlinks for the runtime libraries
       	libfoo.so.M and libfoo.so.M.N.
       *	use relative symlinks for the link-time library libfoo.so.
   ?
   
   This would result in:
   	usr/lib/libz.so		-> ../../lib/libz.so
   	usr/lib/libz.so.0	-> /lib/libz.so.0
   	usr/lib/libz.so.0.3	-> /lib/libz.so.0.3


good idea.


i'm not sure that the usr/lib/lib/libfoo.so.M.N is actually necessary
even?  ld.so will load .so.M which has always been a symlink to the
real thing, and here it doesn't point to the symlink of the real thing,
but the real thing... i don't think usr/lib/libfoo.so.M.N links to
/lib are required in any case..?


   

.mrg.