Re: musl vs. Debian policy

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On 03/06/2013 05:29:13 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> I started writing a short explanation of the musl installation for  
> packagers, and realized that there's one area that's inconvenient:
> $syslib/ld-musl-*.so.1 is a symlink to libc.so.
> 
> Debian policy requires that any public libraries have a version  
> number.

Looks like it's "1" here.

> Specifically, Debian Policy 8.2
> (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html):
> If your package contains files whose names do not change with each  
> change in the
> library shared object version, you must not put them in the shared  
> library package.
> Otherwise, several versions of the shared library cannot be installed  
> at the same
> time without filename clashes, making upgrades and transitions  
> unnecessarily
> difficult.

Debian is incapable of renaming files when packaging them into .debs or  
installing them, in order to enforce Debian's own policies?

> 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.

Um, you said the dynamic linker name is a symlink to libc.so? So what  
does "ship only the dynamic linker" mean in this context?

I'm confused.

Rob