xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - userspace

To: Hasch@xxxxxxxxxxx (Juergen Hasch), John Trostel <jtrostel@xxxxxxxxxx>, (Juergen Hasch) <Hasch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE - userspace
From: Hasch@xxxxxxxxxxx (Juergen Hasch)
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:20:10 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <15O3tg-1LjfN2C@fwd01.sul.t-online.com>
References: <XFMail.20010721165236.jtrostel@connex.com> <15O3tg-1LjfN2C@fwd01.sul.t-online.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Am Samstag, 21. Juli 2001 23:03 schrieb Juergen Hasch:
> Hello John,
>
> Am Samstag, 21. Juli 2001 22:52 schrieb John Trostel:
> > It will NOT break Samba.  The Samba check just looks to see if
> > acl_get_file (or whatever) is available after a -lacl compile call.  If
> > your system looks for libraries in both /usr/lib and /lib, it will not
> > break with the move.
>
> It breaks for me (SuSE system).
> Now I don't claim to be an LSB expert, but IMHO static libraries belong in
> /usr/lib and shared libraries can be in /lib (important ones) or sometimes
> in /usr/lib.

I don't want to be pedantic, but I have taken a look at the Filesystem 
Hierarchy Standard (FHS not LSB as I wrote):

/lib : Essential shared libraries and kernel modules
/usr/lib: Libraries for programming and packages

I think storing a static libray in /lib and adding a symlink from /lib to 
/usr/lib is plain wrong.
Let's keep the filesystem clean, or the distributions will do it for us when 
they include XFS :-)

And now I  go back to my glass of wine...
...Juergen


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>