Re: musl vs. Debian policy

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:17:56PM +0100, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.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.

> 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).

Rich