|
Message-ID: <20150402210914.GG4456@example.net> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 23:09:14 +0200 From: u-wsnj@...ey.se To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: perl native musl, ldd On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:40:22PM -0400, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote: > > I would not say reporting the symbols is a bug, rather that the packager > > is kind of relying on UB. Is there a specification of how a program called > > "ldd" shall format its output and which data shall be present? > Packager Relying on ldd UB, sure!. > Using ldd was the best way I found to list one package all > dependencies (looking at ELF file type ans searching for > required external components). I am using ldd to find the libraries necessary for binaries and had to adjust my "one-liner" scripts when I moved on from glibc to musl ldd. I would suggest that it is your scripts which are to be (easily) adjusted, not the ldd which from my perspective works just fine, for a purpose very similar to yours. > If you have a better way (more standard) to propose not using > ldd that will be a good thing. idea? There is no such standard because the concept of a "dependency on a component" exists only in a context of a certain packaging system. Software in general does not belong to a single such context, so there is no clear notion of components, different parties do have different views. Rune
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.