Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 12:30:34 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow different paths for static and shared libraries On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 06:10:54AM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 2015 03:31:57 -0400 > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 04:24:25AM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael@...ev.co.uk> > > > --- > > > Makefile | 5 ++++- > > > configure | 3 +++ > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > [...] > > > > Is there a motivation/intended-usage-case for this patch? > > libc.so must be available at boot, while the static libraries don't > need to, so installing to different paths comes useful. In that case I think you're not looking for the semantics of slibdir but rather using it as a mechanism to make ldso available before libdir is mounted. Note that having libc.so and libc.a in different dirs is very problematic/dangerous at linking time. If the dir containing libc.a is searched first, then it will get linked into dynamic-linked binaries and very bad things will happen. I think this is probably yet another case of wanting ldso to be the canonical file and libc.so to be a symlink to it (reversing symlink direction). This issue has come up many times before but I always forget how it was resolved (or not) and why nothing changed... 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.