From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2888 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Landley Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:30:30 -0600 Message-ID: <1362695430.6812.8@driftwood> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1362695448 25966 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2013 22:30:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:30:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2889-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 07 23:31:13 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UDjLA-0000jv-VG for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 23:31:09 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 17724 invoked by uid 550); 7 Mar 2013 22:30:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 17716 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2013 22:30:46 -0000 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:subject:to:cc:in-reply-to:x-mailer:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=Bze9ogeddrp2yRGTUifZqsuTbY+ZkUVrgqYoXVP/qkk=; b=EtL3hboogpN6fYbZgJKGYH+ZwSUuHMEaLVCsHgUtxFi9Lk/cCZPwrk9uhaxW568Iuh WmKRnU7yD3iIPAKidQTqBtKE+nxA9A3KXFjACQ8sO98muJ8lF/1lL9hOmTnVXuIhrdEe A/RL2uryTkHm4rZYIofalPi0r/QI1pFRBs2+tm6tZxcFx/IJDXo/PCYqOaJ5+fQkX7YC McUwq+KZsaSZrlXzd1EWfPkoGo7JOvoSwOA0jWf+G9dcHEzwfoHYMOdwcnGBHnHYwsKz PEktZswVan8OBj1gqCERBNzSJUbVjEqb7y1jcE+bc3RYUU+s/uVJv2cS7zs65lD3BK+y VZtA== X-Received: by 10.43.4.74 with SMTP id ob10mr35776070icb.28.1362695434749; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:30:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> (from idunham@lavabit.com on Wed Mar 6 17:29:13 2013) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.11 Content-Disposition: inline X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlD/7tLv75iZ8CuaGkwxmUvlMm9isKSe8xcfQQZVce2vjVMJiRO6NgQBWt0w0P7mVVbNMjH Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2888 Archived-At: On 03/06/2013 05:29:13 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > I started writing a short explanation of the musl installation for =20 > packagers, and realized that there's one area that's inconvenient: > $syslib/ld-musl-*.so.1 is a symlink to libc.so. >=20 > Debian policy requires that any public libraries have a version =20 > 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 =20 > change in the > library shared object version, you must not put them in the shared =20 > library package. > Otherwise, several versions of the shared library cannot be installed =20 > at the same > time without filename clashes, making upgrades and transitions =20 > unnecessarily > difficult. Debian is incapable of renaming files when packaging them into .debs or =20 installing them, in order to enforce Debian's own policies? > The apparent solution to this is to ship only the dynamic linker, =20 > since this is all > we need (the dependency on libc.so is disregarded when it comes to =20 > running > dynamically linked programs). But currently, actually doing this =20 > would be somewhat > of a hack. Um, you said the dynamic linker name is a symlink to libc.so? So what =20 does "ship only the dynamic linker" mean in this context? I'm confused. Rob=