[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:13:59 +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 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.
ld-musl-x86_64.so shouldn't appear elsewhere either.
>> 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.
--
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.
