[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1362695430.6812.8@driftwood>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:30:30 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy
On 03/06/2013 05:29:13 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> I started writing a short explanation of the musl installation for
> packagers, and realized that there's one area that's inconvenient:
> $syslib/ld-musl-*.so.1 is a symlink to libc.so.
>
> Debian policy requires that any public libraries have a version
> number.
Looks like it's "1" here.
> Specifically, Debian Policy 8.2
> (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html):
> If your package contains files whose names do not change with each
> change in the
> library shared object version, you must not put them in the shared
> library package.
> Otherwise, several versions of the shared library cannot be installed
> at the same
> time without filename clashes, making upgrades and transitions
> unnecessarily
> difficult.
Debian is incapable of renaming files when packaging them into .debs or
installing them, in order to enforce Debian's own policies?
> The apparent solution to this is to ship only the dynamic linker,
> since this is all
> we need (the dependency on libc.so is disregarded when it comes to
> running
> dynamically linked programs). But currently, actually doing this
> would be somewhat
> of a hack.
Um, you said the dynamic linker name is a symlink to libc.so? So what
does "ship only the dynamic linker" mean in this context?
I'm confused.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
