Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?

[Bo Thorsen <bo at sonofthor dot dk>]

On Sunday 01 July 2001 21:46, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > It is the same thing as you are saying you can install another version
> > of the system shared C library, libc.so, in /usr/local/lib and expect
> > the whole machine will work reliably.
>
> Yes, I am saying that.  Isn't that true?  I didn't think the base
> system, installed by the vendor, was supposed to even know that /usr/local
> exists.  Now, users who put /usr/local in their PATH/LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> might get hosed -- but the system administrator shouldn't install stuff
> that doesn't work.

I can't believe you're saying this? You just said that /usr/local/lib can't 
be used for other libs on systems which could have an admin doing "configure; 
make bootstrap; make install" with gcc. /usr/local/lib is the correct place 
to install libraries compiled by the sysadmin so don't assume this won't 
happen. SuSE has /usr/local/lib in /etc/ld.so.conf as default and the fhs 
specifically mentions this as the correct place for local installed software. 
Don't ever install something here that will potentially render the system 
unusable (like a gcc snapshot with incompatible libgcc_s) because this list 
will be DOS attacked with bugreports.

Personally I think most of the problem with the shared libgcc would go away 
if the default install dir would be changed to /some...thing/gcc, like 
/usr/local/gcc or /opt/gcc. Just moving the shared lib away from the normal 
ld.so search path would clear much of the issue here.

Bo.

-- 

     Bo Thorsen                 |   28 Merton Road
     Free software developer    |   Slough, SL1 1QW
     SuSE Labs                  |   England