[PATCH] sln: Install as a hard link to ldconfig

[Mike Frysinger]

On 02 Aug 2016 17:28, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i agree, but i don't think it's something we need to support.  having just
> > a static (bash) shell doesn't get you very far -- you've got a few bash
> > builtins and that's it.  trying to actually recover from things often need
> > far more commands.  sln only helps you with creating symlinks (e.g. like
> > resetting glibc links, assuming it's a glibc install error).  i think that
> > special casing this one scenario doesn't make sense nowadays.
> 
>  FAOD, I wrote:
> 
> >  This is to get the facts straight that is -- whether to keep or discard
> > `sln' is of course another matter.
> 
> which I think clarifies my statement was not meant to support the 
> retaining of `sln', but just to clear any confusion there might be about 
> ways of recovery provided by Linux.

sorry, i misread that addendum to your first post.  it wasn't clear to me
that was the route you were going.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20160802/b948660a/attachment.sig>