On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 21:46 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 03:41 +0200, Guido Trentalancia wrote: > > > > $LIBDIR/libselinux.so->$SHLIBDIR/libselinux.so.1 > > > > > > Thus it works no matter what values one might use for LIBDIR and > > > SHLIBDIR. > > > > My advice is to always create the link and install the executable in > > SHLIBDIR and forget LIBDIR for the shared libraries. > > That is an interesting question, and maybe the right one. Do we really > need a link from /usr/lib64/libselinux.so -> /lib64/libselinux.so.1 ? > > Would it not be fine to just have the link: > /lib64/libselinux.so -> /lib64/libselinux.so.1 ? > > I lean towards agreeing that Guido is right and dropping the link > in /usr/lib64 altogether. Any arguments against? We didn't invent this paradigm; it just came from existing layout in Fedora and is true of other libraries there as well. See for example /lib64/libz.so.N vs /usr/lib64/libz.so. And note that the symlink is owned by the -devel package rather than the base package, and shouldn't be required for normal operation (and thus can live in /usr). Of course nowadays they are proposing eliminating the distinction between /foo and /usr/foo entirely (discussion at LPC). -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
