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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, 2002-04-24 at 11:50, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > >> I propose to change the prefix to something else than /usr/local/. >> What do you think? Or is there a problem with autoconf? > > Changing the default prefix isn't good. But you could add some code in > sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.in which warns if the prefix != /usr. Here's a patch. What do you think? Shall I commit it for both branches? Andreas 2002-05-19 Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.in: Warn against an installation in /usr/local. ============================================================ Index: sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.in --- sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.in 30 Apr 2002 22:00:56 -0000 1.49 +++ sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.in 19 May 2002 17:03:10 -0000 @@ -185,6 +185,23 @@ if test "$linuxthreads_missing"; then fi fi +if test "$prefix" = "/usr/local" -o "$prefix" = "/usr/local/" -o "$prefix" = "NONE"; then + if test $enable_sanity = yes; then + echo "\ +*** On GNU/Linux systems the GNU C Library should not be installed into +*** /usr/local since this might make your system totally unusable. +*** We strongly advise to use a different prefix. For details read the FAQ. +*** If you really mean to do this, run configure again using the extra +*** parameter \`--disable-sanity-checks'." + exit 1 + else + echo "\ +*** WARNING: Do you really want to install the GNU C Library into /usr/local? +*** This might make your system totally unusable, for details read the FAQ." + fi +fi + + # One Linux we use ldconfig. use_ldconfig=yes ============================================================ Index: FAQ.in --- FAQ.in 5 Jan 2002 06:15:54 -0000 1.130 +++ FAQ.in 19 May 2002 17:03:12 -0000 @@ -1028,6 +1028,19 @@ This version is needed because the fpos_ have changed in glibc 2.2, and gcc 2.95.3 contains a corresponding patch. +?? Why shall glibc never get installed on GNU/Linux systems in +/usr/local? + +{AJ} The GNU C compiler treats /usr/local/include and /usr/local/lib in a +special way, these directories will be searched before the system +directories. Since on GNU/Linux the system directories /usr/include and +/usr/lib contain a --- possibly different --- version of glibc and mixing +certain files from different glibc installations is not supported and will +break, you risk breaking your complete system. If you want to test a glibc +installation, use another directory as argument to --prefix. If you like to +install this glibc version as default version, overriding the existing one, +use --prefix=/usr and everything will go in the right places. + ? Source and binary incompatibilities, and what to do about them ?? I expect GNU libc to be 100% source code compatible with -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |