This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
I configured glibc 2.2 with `--prefix=/opt/glibc' and did a `make
install'. One of the last commands executed was:
test ! -x /home/kettenis/obj/libc/elf/ldconfig || \
/home/kettenis/obj/libc/elf/ldconfig \
/opt/glibc/lib /opt/glibc/lib
which kindly reminded me why I don't like ldconfig. This totally
hosed my system, since after that my shell decided to use
/opt/glibc/lib/libdl.so.2 and failed because it couldn't find the
GLIBC_2.2 version definition in /lib/libc.so.6. I must admit it's a
bit weird (/opt/glibc/lib/libdl.so.2 is chosen over /lib/libdl.so.2,
but /opt/glibc/lib/libc.so.6 isn't preferred over /lib/libc.so.6, this
might mean that there is a bug lurking here), but I don't think we
should run ldconfig as part of the libc installation process. The
dynamic linker is supposed to be able to find the installed libraries
all by itself isn't it? And if people really want to run ldconfig,
then I think it only should be done when prefix==/usr.
Mark
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |