Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net!not-for-mail
From: owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Unhackable" Apple Confirms Malware-Infected Apps Found And Removed From Its Chinese App Store
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:57:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: O.W.L.
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <fapl.3a3a@rooftop.invalid>
References: <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>   <mvgoaj$sh3$1@dont-email.me> <mvgrus$b4h$1@dont-email.me> <D241438B.6016E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mvgtjd$j14$1@dont-email.me> <slrnn1qb76.4kk.jedi@nomad.mishnet> <d84v5gFo6scU2@mid.individual.net> <TbKdnRzETe1sHoDLnZ2dnUU7-dGdnZ2d@bresnan.com> <fsdnvm930.a3p@rooftop.invalid> <561d9250$0$7230$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> <fsdmvnjc83.jdiz@rooftop.invalid> <561da674$0$7230$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid
User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64))
Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.freeware:246396 comp.sys.mac.system:83414 comp.os.linux.advocacy:326531

In comp.os.linux.advocacy vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:25:08 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 23:12:25 +0000, owl wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/15 12:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-10-13, JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't even matter if Apple owns all of the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason it's being discussed at all is because Peter hates
>>>>>> everything Apple.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think the reason is that he can't grok Objective-C very well.
>>>>> He complained that things aren't where they should be in the system.
>>>>> Neither are things in the same place in Solaris.  Finding the X11
>>>>> libs in Solaris is buried pretty deep and not in /usr/libs/X11/libs. 
>>>>> Things like that bother him for some reason.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> On my Solaris VM, X11 headers and libs are in /usr/include/X11 and
>>>> /usr/X11/lib (as symlinks to /usr/lib/*).  Those are the standard,
>>>> expected locations afaik.
>>>> 
>>>> anon@solaris:~$ locate Xlib.h /usr/include/X11/Xlib.h anon@solaris:~$
>>>> locate libX11.so /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so.4
>>>> /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so.5 /usr/X11/lib/amd64/libX11.so
>>>> /usr/X11/lib/amd64/libX11.so.4 /usr/X11/lib/amd64/libX11.so.5
>>>> /usr/lib/libX11.so /usr/lib/libX11.so.4 /usr/lib/libX11.so.5
>>>> /usr/lib/amd64/libX11.so /usr/lib/amd64/libX11.so.4
>>>> /usr/lib/amd64/libX11.so.5 anon@solaris:~$
>>>> 
>>>> Contrast with debian screwball location (with no /usr/X11/lib
>>>> symlinks):
>>>> anon@lowtide:~$ locate libX11.so /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so
>>>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6
>>>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6.3.0 anon@lowtide:~$
>>> 
>>> Does it matter where they are kept, as long as "-lX11" does the right
>>> thing?
>>> 
>>> 
>> Would it really matter if they were in the standard, expected location
>> for the default arch, and somewhere else, such as /usr/lib32, for
>> nondefault,
>> so long as "-lX11" does the right thing?
>> 
>>> (I'm assuming you know that that location is to support multiple
>>> architectures.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> Yes and don't care.
> 
> Well, would you care if you realized this is to also support cross-
> compilation on architectures other than x86 and x86_64?
> 

Not really.  Non-default architectures can have their libs who-cares-where,
and a cross-comp build script can handle it.  The host system should have
its libraries in standard, well-known places.