This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Support installing headers for bootstrapping libgcc
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Nix <nix at esperi dot org dot uk>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:59:32 -0600
- Subject: Re: Support installing headers for bootstrapping libgcc
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20120309190400.552E82C0A7@topped-with-meat.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120323000616.32F372C08D@topped-with-meat.com> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20120511183752.0B1112C0BE@topped-with-meat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 05/11/2012 12:54 PM, Nix wrote:
On 11 May 2012, Roland McGrath stated:
I think we can just get rid of sln entirely at this point. We really
don't expect anybody to be able to run 'make install' directly on a
live system and not ruin all sorts of things that might be needed
somewhere in the process. So why should ln be different?
You might well break various glibc postinstall scripts if you do that.
(You'll certainly break mine, though I don't like sln(1) either.)
Well, sln is also quite helpful in repairing a broken system :-)