Re: Progress on roadmap to 0.9.13

[Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi>]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:59:12 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:

> One key target for 0.9.13 which I didn't cover above is improving
> "make install" and possibly tweaking the symlink strategy for libc.so
> and ld-musl.so. At several times in the past, I was fairly convinced
> that it makes more sense to reverse the symlink direction and have
> libc.so point to ld-musl.so rather than the other way around. However,
> I keep going back to doubting that there's any good reason for it to
> change. So if there are people who still care about this issue, I'd
> really like to hear you speak up _now_ rather than 2 days before the
> next release, or after the next release. If there's no progress on
> justifying changes, I think the only changes I'm going to make in this
> area are to fix lack-of-atomicity issues during installation.

Sorry for late answer.

IIRC the advantages were:

- Easier to install different subarch (even compatible arch versions)
  side by side. As ld.so names are unique - libc.so is same for all so
  those would need to be renamed anyway.

- libc.so and libc.a can go to /usr/lib if libc.so is just an
  optional symlink. this is desirable as the development stuff are not
  nice to keep in /lib.

So I would at least like to have the symlink direction changed.

Or alternatively have something like:
  /lib/libc-arch.so.<abiver>
  /lib/ld-musl-<arch>.so.1 -> libc-arch.so.<abiver
  /usr/lib/libc.so -> /lib/libc.so.<abiver>
  /usr/lib/libc.a

Allowing of course /usr/lib to be a toolchain specific prefix.

- Timo