| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:23:53PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> The reason that gen_usr_ldscript exists is that we do not install |
| 3 |
> static libraries in /. I think the argument for this is that they |
| 4 |
> aren't needed at boot time. I would agree that they are not, but, given |
| 5 |
> all of the issues we have had in the past with gen_usr_ldscript, and |
| 6 |
> that issues keep coming up with it, I would like to propose something |
| 7 |
> different. |
| 8 |
I know the original purpose of gen_usr_ldscript. I'm objecting to the |
| 9 |
fact that it removes a critical symlink entirely (instead of moving it). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I was a Gentoo user when gen_usr_ldscript was introduced, and it |
| 12 |
certainly helped then for keeping cleaner installs. I don't want it |
| 13 |
removed, just improved slightly. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I would like to propose that we stop splitting the installation |
| 16 |
> locations of libraries and use the upstream build systems to install the |
| 17 |
> libraries where we want them. If we do that, it means we could get rid |
| 18 |
> of gen_usr_ldscript completely. |
| 19 |
I'm against that one, for bloat of /. If we ever fully merge /usr and / |
| 20 |
like other distros have done, then it will become moot, but not before |
| 21 |
then. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> We could start doing this today, except that portage has a hard ban |
| 24 |
> against installing static libraries in /, which I have opened up a bug |
| 25 |
> about [1]. I don't know when or why the hard ban was introduced, but I'm sure |
| 26 |
> it was pre-2004 and pre-council. |
| 27 |
I think it was late 2002. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead |
| 32 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 33 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
Archives