From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2891 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <20130308004118.GX20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> <20130307130424.GW20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87r4jr6pm3.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1362703291 27536 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2013 00:41:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 00:41:31 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2892-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 08 01:41:56 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 1UDlNh-0006eN-VD for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:41:54 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11958 invoked by uid 550); 8 Mar 2013 00:41:31 -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 11950 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2013 00:41:31 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r4jr6pm3.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2891 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:17:56PM +0100, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > Rich Felker 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