Re: [gentoo-dev] libtool lt_dlopenext vs. gen_ld_script: breakages at runtime

["Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:23:53PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> The reason that gen_usr_ldscript exists is that we  do not install
> static libraries in /. I think the argument for this is that they
> aren't needed at boot time. I would agree that they are not, but, given
> all of the issues we have had in the past with gen_usr_ldscript, and
> that issues keep coming up with it, I would like to propose something
> different.
I know the original purpose of gen_usr_ldscript. I'm objecting to the
fact that it removes a critical symlink entirely (instead of moving it).

I was a Gentoo user when gen_usr_ldscript was introduced, and it
certainly helped then for keeping cleaner installs. I don't want it
removed, just improved slightly.

> I would like to propose that we stop splitting the installation
> locations of libraries and use the upstream build systems to install the
> libraries where we want them. If we do that, it means we could get rid
> of gen_usr_ldscript completely.
I'm against that one, for bloat of /. If we ever fully merge /usr and /
like other distros have done, then it will become moot, but not before
then.

> We could start doing this today, except that portage has a hard ban
> against installing static libraries in /, which I have opened up a bug
> about [1]. I don't know when or why the hard ban was introduced, but I'm sure
> it was pre-2004 and pre-council.
I think it was late 2002.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85