Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc

[Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>]

On 19-Feb-2001, Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:10:49AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > 3. Install it undr /lib for Linux.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but not via gcc's "make install".
> > 
> > Why isn't libgcc installed in /lib for everyone?
> > Give me an example of a unix system where that isn't the right thing
> > to do and I'll reconsider.
> 
> Any Unix other than Linux.
> 
> By default, GCC is third-party extraneous software, to be installed locally.
> Any system administrator who has been through the process of upgrading knows
> to stay *out* of the system directories when installing extra software,
> because those areas are under control of the vendor.

I thought this sub-thread was all about what should happen if the
user does `configure --prefix=/usr'.  Your argument about not touching
system directories doesn't hold in that case, since /usr is already
a system directory.

However, touching /lib when --prefix=/usr would go against the
documentation for --prefix.  Rather than doing that, I think configure
should just print a big warning in that case (when --prefix=/usr
and --slibdir is not set explicitly).  There should be another option
that you can select which will put it in /lib.  Perhaps the
combination `--prefix=/usr --slibdir=/lib' would suffice for that,
although I don't think that will do the right thing with symlinks,
and in any case it might be nicer to have a single option for
configuring gcc as the "native" compiler.  The installation
documentation and the warning for --prefix=/usr should both
mention this option.

Does that sound like a good approach?

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
                                    |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.