|
Message-ID: <87mwuc5ob2.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:08:17 +0100 From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 04:13:59PM +0100, Christian Neukirchen wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> ld-musl-x86_64.so shouldn't appear elsewhere either. > > Yes and no. Formally, libc.so is in a sort of reserved namespace (or > at least, -lc is), whereas there's nothing "reserved" about the name > ld-musl-$(ARCH).so.1. I agree this is fairly irrelevant however as > nobody else is going to use that library name unless they're trying to > break things. > >> >> 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). >> >> This happens because /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 has a SONAME of libc.so >> (which should be the correct place). The message is not harmful, but >> annoying. > > Well the message should never happen unless ldconfig is processing the > directory containing libc.so, right? It doesn't happen for me on > Debian when I have musl's ld-musl-i386.so.1 in /lib and ldconfig > processes the default library path. That is weird... stat("/usr/lib/libc.so", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=255, ...}) = 0 stat("/usr/lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=583007, ...}) = 0 lstat("/usr/lib/libc.so", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=255, ...}) = 0 ... glibc printf crap ... write(2, "ldconfig: ", 10ldconfig: ) = 10 write(2, "/usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbol"..., 40/usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbolic link Note that /usr/lib/libc.so is a glibc file containing an ld script here. If I remove /usr/lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1, the message goes away. But I think it also had something to do with lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 27 08:29 lib -> usr/lib/ I thought the issue was that it found ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 and tried to ensure libc.so points to it, due to the SONAME. -- Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com> http://chneukirchen.org
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.