Re: [SM-2006052516442831677] new msg by stf:

stf wrote/schrieb/scripsit:
>SubMaster Action:
>new msg by stf: 
>can you please give an example where the symlinks are required?
>
>On Patch [2006052516442831677]:
>Stefan Paletta:
>	sort manpages in sections 2 and 3 into :dev subpackage
>	place symlinks to shared libraries in /lib into /usr/lib, so ld finds them

In general, they are always required. When e.g. -lfoo is requested, the 
linker will, by default, search for the following files (slightly 
simplified) in order, stopping at the first file it finds:

/usr/lib/libfoo.so
/usr/lib/libfoo.a
/usr/local/lib/libfoo.so
/usr/local/lib/libfoo.a
/lib/libfoo.so
/lib/libfoo.a

Previously we would move the static libraries into /usr/lib, but only 
the static libraries. This means that in the example only 
/usr/lib/libfoo.a and /lib/libfoo.so exist, and so the linker would use 
the former one.
Now, you may ask "then why do the shared libraries in /lib get used at 
all, when they should be overridden by static ones in /usr/lib?" -- that 
is because either the package explicitly places /lib in the search path, 
or because it uses libtool to read the correct location from the lib's 
libtool archive file. Packages that do neither (and rightly so!) end up 
having only the static library used. Point in case: mutt (libncurses).

ceterum censeo ... that whole postflist_static_lib thing should better 
be scrapped altogether. It's a highly bogus fix to mitigate problems 
caused by another stupid automatism, its effects are not completely 
understood (as this message shows) and it is also incomplete after all
(think /lib64).
Instead, the very few packages that need to have shared libraries placed 
in /lib should each be carefully fixed on its own.

-Stefan