[uClibc]uclibc debs

David Schleef ds at schleef.org
Tue Jul 3 03:56:26 UTC 2001


On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:38:56PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Mon Jul 02, 2001 at 03:21:49PM -0700, David Schleef wrote:
> > 
> > It really all depends if you want to be able to put the uC-track
> > libraries in /lib and /usr/lib on a standard glibc system.  I
> > was under the impression that this was a goal, but perhaps it
> > shouldn't be.  Comparing to libc5, sharing directories is
> > specifically not supported.
> 
> It turns out, we can have our cake and eat it too...
> 
> I think I just figured out the _real_ problem.  Until now, for each uClibc
> library, we have had _two_ symlinks: libc.so.0 _and_ libc.so as symlinks to
> libuClibc-0.9.5.so, libm.so.0 _and_ libm.so as symlinks to libm-0.9.5.so
> symlink, etc.  It turns out this is just plain wrong and results in messed up
> dependancies.

Er?  lib${george}-${version}.so and two links is how it's always
been done.

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of having
anything uClibc-related in /lib or /usr/lib on a development
machine.  (Except for /lib/ld-uclibc.so.0.)  The main reason I
liked the idea earlier is because powerpc uses a native linker
which doesn't look in /usr/powerpc-linux-uclibc/lib by default.
But that's a /etc/ld.so.conf issue.



dave...






More information about the uClibc mailing list