Re: gcc-4.8.2-1: /bin/gcc fails

[Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>]

On 11/4/2013 6:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Nov  2 23:54, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > So, while I'm not convinced that this is a huge issue overall, if
> > "don't do that" isn't good enough, the easiest workaround is to
> > configure GCC with --libexecdir=/usr/lib.
>
> That would be the safer option, I guess.

My about-to-be-uploaded inetutils update puts the servers in libexecdir 
aka /usr/libexec/ -- and changes the /etc/defaults/ associated xinetd 
and inetd.d configuration files as appropriate.  'Course, my 
to-be-written update announcement will be a horrific, as current users 
with customized configuration WILL have to modify their files (and setup 
doesn't have an .rpmsave/.rpmnew mechanism).

The currently-distributed version (and associated xinetd scripts and 
sample inetd.d/ configuration files) puts them in /usr/sbin.

If --libexecdir=/usr/lib, then...what?

Should I revert to /usr/sbin for slave servers?  Use $libexecdir but 
"know" that it is going to be /usr/lib and configure appropriately?  I'm 
confused as to how to proceed here.




Frankly, I've never understood the distinction between / and /usr in a 
cygwin setup.  It makes a certain amount of sense on a "real" OS, but 
for us?

Why not replace the /usr/bin = /bin and /usr/lib = /lib, and the 
oncoming trainwreck of additional "relocatability" expansions for 
libexec and share, by simply doing:

   /usr = /

?  Or is there something in windows-land (like shortcuts in the start 
menu) that would be broken by this?  Are we worried about shadowing /etc 
and /usr/etc (or /home and /usr/home)?

--
Chuck


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple