[PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

Lennart Sorensen lsorense at csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Mon May 3 14:32:38 UTC 2010


On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:14:38AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
> Yes, static linking would be more bullet proof. But either the user, or
> the package manager needs jump through hoops in this case. There needs to
> be the static versions compiled, they need to get installed, then finally
> replaced with dynamic versions, etc.

Why would it need to be replaced with a dynamic version?  Why could the
package manager not always be staticly linked and ust stay that way?

> I'm not saying everyone needs to use this. I'm not asking support for this.
> I'm not even recommending this for anyone.
>
> I only want to do it myself, because it solves my immediate problems
> with less work and more user friendly way than static linking. The package
> manager is there to handle the other issues.

Well user friendly to who?  Less work for who?  It sounds like just
linking the package manager and related tools staticly solves everything.
Sounds like the least work of all.

-- 
Len Sorensen


More information about the uClibc mailing list