| 1 |
On 2019.06.19 16:14, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:26:50 -0400, Jack wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On 2019.06.19 14:10, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:45:03 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > > wifi ~ # unsymlink-lib --analyze |
| 8 |
> > > > /usr/lib needs to be a symlink to lib64! |
| 9 |
> > > > wifi ~ # ls -al /usr/lib |
| 10 |
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 4 13:37 /usr/lib -> /usr/lib64 |
| 11 |
> > > > wifi ~ # |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > The symlink looks the same as another unconverted system - so |
| 14 |
> > > > whats |
| 15 |
> > > the |
| 16 |
> > > > problem? |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > On this system, /usr/lib is a symlink to lib64, as the message |
| 19 |
> states, |
| 20 |
> > > not /usr/lib64 |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > % ls -ld /usr/lib |
| 23 |
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 5 Jul 16 2015 /usr/lib -> lib64 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> > Ah, I think we've gotten to a bad splitting of hairs. /usr/lib -> |
| 26 |
> > lib64 and /usr/lib -> /usr/lib64 have the same effect, but are not |
| 27 |
> > quite the same. The first is a relative symlink, the second is |
| 28 |
> > absolute, although both actually point to the same place. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That's what software does, it interprets things literally. It is |
| 31 |
> looking |
| 32 |
> for a symlink to lib64 and finding something else. The fact that the |
| 33 |
> actual link is equivalent is also irrelevant. |
| 34 |
Agreed, but in this case, it is the end outcome which really matters, |
| 35 |
so I would consider that an inadequacy (not sure whether it quite |
| 36 |
counts as a bug) in the script. It won't help the OP much, but filing |
| 37 |
a bug against unsymlink-lib might get acted on. It is also possible to |
| 38 |
file an issue against it in its github repository. |
Archives