On July 23, 2016 3:33:10 PM CDT, "Armin K." <[email protected]> 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.
Oap! Yes, I had forgotten about the arch spec in my previous message. This is mandated by the LSB AMD64 spec. http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-AMD64/LSB-Core-AMD64/requirements.html#RLIBRARIES Sorry about that. At least Arch users a symlink to /usr/lib for both. Suspect the same for Debian. > >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. That's not required anymore by FHS-3.0, but was the reason for RH vs Debian debate a few years back (2005?->current), well before the upstart and systemd debate. > 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. > >Possible third solution to the ones above is to explicitly use >--libdir=/usr/lib switch >on the packages whose *.la files reference /usr/lib64. > Correct solution, but is a lot of work for little gain. This should be done regardless over time. --DJ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
