1 |
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:26:50 -0400, Jack wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 2019.06.19 14:10, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
4 |
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:45:03 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > > wifi ~ # unsymlink-lib --analyze |
7 |
> > > /usr/lib needs to be a symlink to lib64! |
8 |
> > > wifi ~ # ls -al /usr/lib |
9 |
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 4 13:37 /usr/lib -> /usr/lib64 |
10 |
> > > wifi ~ # |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > The symlink looks the same as another unconverted system - so |
13 |
> > > whats |
14 |
> > the |
15 |
> > > problem? |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > On this system, /usr/lib is a symlink to lib64, as the message states, |
18 |
> > not /usr/lib64 |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > % ls -ld /usr/lib |
21 |
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 5 Jul 16 2015 /usr/lib -> lib64 |
22 |
|
23 |
> Ah, I think we've gotten to a bad splitting of hairs. /usr/lib -> |
24 |
> lib64 and /usr/lib -> /usr/lib64 have the same effect, but are not |
25 |
> quite the same. The first is a relative symlink, the second is |
26 |
> absolute, although both actually point to the same place. |
27 |
|
28 |
That's what software does, it interprets things literally. It is looking |
29 |
for a symlink to lib64 and finding something else. The fact that the |
30 |
actual link is equivalent is also irrelevant. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Neil Bothwick |
35 |
|
36 |
The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach. |