This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc


On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:10:49AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > 3. Install it undr /lib for Linux.
> > 
> > Yes, but not via gcc's "make install".
> 
> Why isn't libgcc installed in /lib for everyone?
> Give me an example of a unix system where that isn't the right thing
> to do and I'll reconsider.

Any Unix other than Linux.

By default, GCC is third-party extraneous software, to be installed locally.
Any system administrator who has been through the process of upgrading knows
to stay *out* of the system directories when installing extra software,
because those areas are under control of the vendor.

Anything installed in those directories is likely to get completely removed
when an upgrade is performed.  I for one do not care for the idea of having
to reinstall local software after every upgrade.  With GCC's current setup,
I know that /usr/local won't be touched by the vendors.  But the vendors
are within their rights to expect that /usr, /lib, and /bin belong to them,
and that /usr/local belongs to me.

If a vendor wishes to customize a version of GCC and ship it (e.g., as
every Linux distro does, or as Sun does with /opt/sfw), then that's fine.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]