Armin K. wrote:
On 23.07.2016 21:04, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
On 23.07.2016 20:59, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
On 21.07.2016 23:59, via blfs-book wrote:
Author: renodr
Date: Thu Jul 21 14:59:16 2016
New Revision: 17603
Log:
Added seds to subversion, libva, and libX11 to silence more libtool warnings
Typo fixes
Are you really going to add this to every package, just because it's anoying?
Not to *every* package. Most of them that I have run across don't complain
whatsoever. I would say 75% of packages I have built haven't complained. That
said, 15% have complained, and 10% don't use Libtool whatsoever.
If you want to get rid of it, use a more elegant solution:
Remove /usr/lib64 symlink when starting lfs build. Make sure nothing gets
installed
there by using apropriate switches to point to /usr/lib. I think I've ironed
out all
the cases that I've found when I was around, or
Remove all *.la files in /usr/lib (but not its subdirectories). They are
useless anyways.
If we weren't in the second half of the last month before release, I'd consider
suggesting that. That would require a bit more testing than I can muster at the
moment. Wouldn't that violate the FHS as well?
No sane distro ships *.la files in /usr/lib, and most of them respect FHS. So
no, it wouldn't.
I am specifically talking about the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks. Those are
required by the FHS, if I am not mistaken. I am not opposed to removing the
*.la files, but where would we tell users to do that? The issue with these
warnings is that they detract from useful build output altogether. We already
know that many users don't read the introductory chapters and jump straight
into the build instructions.
/lib64 is required, specifically because 64 bit programs look for dynamic
linker there.
As for /usr/lib64, I'm not sure whether other distros ship the symlink. I do
know that
Fedora explicitly uses /lib64 and /usr/lib64 on 64 bit systems and /lib and
/usr/lib
on 32 bit system, as is correct by FHS. LFS and some other distros don't follow
this
convetion, but instead keep /usr/lib64 and /lib64 as a symlink to their
non-lib64
counterparts.
The reason most distros have separate /lib and /lib64 directories is that
they contain 32-bit and 64-bit libraries respectively. -- Preface, Section
iii, last paragraph.
Possible third solution to the ones above is to explicitly use
--libdir=/usr/lib switch
on the packages whose *.la files reference /usr/lib64.
I haven't tried that, but wouldn't that just mean where to place libraries
during install?
Overall that would be a lot of files:
$ grep -l /usr/lib/lib64 *.la|wc
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
