[lfs-dev] Killing the /lib64 symlinks (Was: Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r17603 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/prog introduction/welcome x/installing x/lib)

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sat Aug 6 15:42:47 PDT 2016


On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 05:15:40PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
> I continue to build Xorg in /usr regularly. I know the advantages of
> running it in /opt, but... binary programs!
> 
[...]
> I would need it, so it would probably screw up any updates that I do
> further if we make this change. I have two binary programs that I run
> regularly. The most important one for me is an application/game called
> Uplink, created by Introversion Software. As it is, for that one, I have to
> change it from a .deb file into a .tar.gz using the deb2targz script. The
> other is a version control manager on a system I maintain for a friend of
> mine. That is called PVSS, and it is a pain to get running in general, but
> I always have the client installed in case I have to do anything.

I've had to accept that I'm not any good at most of this stuff, even
estimating (4 expletive-deleted months to look at fonts, allowing an
extra month for various texlive and firefox stuff, when I assumed I'd
get it done in 2 - and I still haven't posted my suggestions for
changes) so, as an alternative, maybe somebody who understands this
[ Hi Chris, Hi DJ ] could produce a hint on removing /lib64 ?

Years ago, I used to run pure64 CLFS on x86_64 - and it was clean,
but in those days one or two source programs needed attention.  I
really miss that cleanliness, and I suspect that a lot of the
libtool "appears to be moved" messages are related to this - but
then I haven't built 32-bit for perhaps a year, so maybe I'm
mistaken about that message.

ĸen
-- 
`I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good
for them.'     -- Small Gods


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list