Re: [PATCH] Allow different paths for static and shared libraries

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 06:10:54AM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 03:31:57 -0400
> Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 04:24:25AM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael@iodev.co.uk>
> > > ---
> > >  Makefile  | 5 ++++-
> > >  configure | 3 +++
> > >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Is there a motivation/intended-usage-case for this patch?
> 
> libc.so must be available at boot, while the static libraries don't
> need to, so installing to different paths comes useful.

In that case I think you're not looking for the semantics of slibdir
but rather using it as a mechanism to make ldso available before
libdir is mounted.

Note that having libc.so and libc.a in different dirs is very
problematic/dangerous at linking time. If the dir containing libc.a is
searched first, then it will get linked into dynamic-linked binaries
and very bad things will happen.

I think this is probably yet another case of wanting ldso to be the
canonical file and libc.so to be a symlink to it (reversing symlink
direction). This issue has come up many times before but I always
forget how it was resolved (or not) and why nothing changed...

Rich