[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130308004118.GX20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:41:19 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:17:56PM +0100, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Is there any prospect of installing lib/libc.so straight to
> >> ${LDSO_PATHNAME} ? I'm thinking it could be done via something like:
> >
> > This has been proposed before, and the main obstacle was build-system
> > difficulties if I remember right. I'd still like to consider doing it,
> > but it would be nice to be able to do it for its own sake rather than
> > for the sake of satisfying distro policy being applied where it
> > doesn't make sense. Maybe we can try to figure out Debian's stance
> > before we rush into making the change for their sake.
>
> In this case, could we also change the SONAME of the library itself to
> something not libc.so? It would avoid this "bogus" warning of glibc
> ldconfig...
No, this is a lot more problematic and I see no benefits. For each
possible SONAME musl may have been linked by, musl must contain a
special-case to refuse to load this SONAME when it appears in
DT_NEEDED. "libc.so" is a name that should never appear elsewhere. I
don't want to keep expanding this list of names, and of course
programs linked using a new SONAME would be gratuitously incompatible
with an older musl ld.so that didn't have the new name included in its
refuse-to-load list.
> ldconfig: /usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbolic link
IIRC this is happening due to some other misconfiguration. If nothing
else, it means glibc and musl were both installed in /usr/lib, or
ldconfig is configured for the wrong paths (since ldconfig has nothing
to do with musl).
Rich
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.
