Arch Linux

Well, /usr/lib/libEGL.so.1 should point to /usr/lib/mesa/libEGL.so.1.0.0 -- the mesa package is wrong.

You're right that the logic in add_binary surrounding symlinks is a little strange, though.

How is it "wrong" when the symlink points to another symlink?

In this case? Because we're hand crafting the soname symlinks in the mesa package. Find me a libtool project which links libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.1 -> libfoo.so.1.0.0.

I'm surprised ldconfig is okay with this.

How is that important? There is no guarantee for a binary or library to not be hidden behind several layers of symlinks. There is nothing in any spec that limits the depth of recursion during symlink resolution to a number as small as 1. So I don't understand why this should be a problem with another package, when it is actually a shortcoming in mkinitcpio.

Shouldn't add_file simply resolve symlinks recursively until it hits the real file? Or, alternatively, shouldn't we just ignore symlinks entirely in add_binary or add_file and just dereference during the copy ('install' has no option for this, sadly)?

> How is that important? [...]
I'm opting out of this discussion -- it's not going to lead to anything useful.

> Shouldn't add_file simply resolve symlinks recursively until it hits the real file? Or, alternatively, shouldn't we just ignore symlinks entirely in add_binary or add_file and just dereference during the copy ('install' has no option for this, sadly)?
The latter. add_binary can probably be fixed as simply as:

- add_symlink "$sodep" "$(readlink "$sodep")"
+ add_symlink "$sodep" "$resolved"

add_file doesn't need to be fixed -- install already dereferences symlinks.

> add_file doesn't need to be fixed -- install already dereferences symlinks.

Then why bother with symlinks at all?

if [[ -f $sodep && ! -e $BUILDROOT$sodep ]]; then
add_file "$sodep" "$sodep" "$(stat -Lc %a "$sodep")"
fi

This should "just work". Is there a special reason why /usr/lib/$SONAME must be symlink to /usr/lib/$SONAME.a.b where a.b is some arbitrary magic version number?

Well, the extra tests aren't necessary since add_file already performs them.

You make an interesting observation though -- because we run ldconfig on the image, we can use that to generate the right symlinks and add_binary can just add the resolved lib.

edit: or not, since mesa decides to use some dir other than /usr/lib.