1 |
On Wednesday 26 December 2012 23:01:46 William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:48:23PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
3 |
> > On 24/12/2012 20:08, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > i.e. saying "we should get rid of gen_usr_ldscript and use |
5 |
> > > --libdir=/lib" makes absolutely no sense. it's just begging for |
6 |
> > > people to screw things up constantly and waste developer time for 0 |
7 |
> > > gain. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Amen. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the |
12 |
> council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an |
13 |
> initramfs, I am re-considering this. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> In linux-only ebuilds, if we install everything in /usr as gregkh and |
16 |
> others have suggested, we can remove this call from them. Also, for the |
17 |
> other ebuilds that have this call, we can eventually disable the |
18 |
> function on Linux systems. |
19 |
|
20 |
as mentioned in bug 417451, the ebuilds won't drop the `gen_usr_ldscript` |
21 |
call. we'll update the gen_usr_ldscript itself to be a no-op. that way non- |
22 |
linux systems continue to work, as well as linux users who want to live in the |
23 |
past. |
24 |
|
25 |
on the upside, i will no longer have compassion for keeping / small, so we can |
26 |
close all the existing bugs about "pkg foo in / is linked against lib bar in |
27 |
/usr" by dumping these calls. or maybe we symlink /usr/lib to /lib ? :) |
28 |
-mike |