Em 25-05-2014 11:37, Pierre Labastie escreveu:> Le 25/05/2014 16:15, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit : >> Em 25-05-2014 07:53, [email protected] escreveu: >>> Author: pierre >>> Date: Sun May 25 03:53:19 2014 >>> New Revision: 13150 >>> >>> Log: >>> Mariadb-10.0.11. Ticket #5063. >>> >>> Modified: >>> trunk/BOOK/general.ent >>> trunk/BOOK/introduction/welcome/changelog.xml >>> trunk/BOOK/server/databases/mariadb.xml >>> >> >> ... >> >>> Modified: trunk/BOOK/server/databases/mariadb.xml >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- trunk/BOOK/server/databases/mariadb.xml Sat May 24 13:03:22 2014 (r13149) >>> +++ trunk/BOOK/server/databases/mariadb.xml Sun May 25 03:53:19 2014 (r13150) >> >> ... >> >>> <seg> >>> - libmysqlclient.{so,a}, libmysqlclient_r.{so,a}, >>> - <!-- libmysqld.{so,a},--> and libmysqlservices.a, >>> + libmysqlclient.{so,a}, >>> + <!-- these are symlinks libmysqlclient_r.{so,a}, --> >> >> I don't understand. >> >> libmysqlclient.so is also a symlink but you kept it. What I understand >> that either symlink, hardlink or not, .so and .a have to be listed. >> Igor, included them, Bruce and I kept them. Why did remove them? Just >> being symlink is not a criteria to remove them. It is like that in all >> other packages in the book. If there is another reason other than that, >> please write in the xml, if not, please, put them back. >> >>> + <!-- libmysqld.{so,a},--> libmysqlservices.a, >>> and several under /usr/lib/mysql/plugin/ >>> </seg> >>> <seg> >>> >> >> > Please do not be upset: you are right, I should have been more explicit. But, > what I wanted to tell is that the whole set of libmysqlclient_r libraries, > _including_ libmysqlclient_r.so.18.0.0 are symlinks to libmysqlclient.so, and > libmysqlclient_r.a is also a symlink to libmysqlclient.a.
No, I am not upset, sorry. Should have included some emoticon, but including :-) > > So, for me, this libmysqlclient_r series look like compatibility symlinks, not > libraries. > Yes. And there are other places where we have that, in the book, explicitly mentioned, even included in Short Descriptions. I even remember some in both places, included by Ken. > Would you agree with this comment > <!-- there is no libmysqlclient_r.so.xxx shared library, nor > libmysqlclient_r.a static lib, only compatibility symlinks to the > corresponding "non _r" libraries --> I am sorry, but I prefer them listed. > OTOH, I do not have strong feeling about that. Another solution could be to > put them back, and write that they are symlinks to the corresponding non _r > versions. This could be a good solution. Problem is not the feeling :-), it is a question of consistency. No other place explicitly tell that the .so is a symlink. But you could do better by informing in the book that they are *compatibility symlinks*, not just *symlinks*, exactly because almost if not all .so in the book are symlinks. Sorry for the discussion. I hate involving myself in arguments, but hope you take this as a technical discussion. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
