From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2899 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:27:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20130309012712.GB20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> <20130307130424.GW20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87r4jr6pm3.fsf@gmail.com> <20130308004118.GX20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <8762117wlk.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 1362792445 1793 80.91.229.3 (9 Mar 2013 01:27:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 01:27:25 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2900-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Mar 09 02:27:50 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 1UE8Zf-0000NA-OC for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:27:47 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 9755 invoked by uid 550); 9 Mar 2013 01:27:25 -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 9746 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2013 01:27:24 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8762117wlk.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2899 Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 04:13:59PM +0100, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > >> 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. > > ld-musl-x86_64.so shouldn't appear elsewhere either. Yes and no. Formally, libc.so is in a sort of reserved namespace (or at least, -lc is), whereas there's nothing "reserved" about the name ld-musl-$(ARCH).so.1. I agree this is fairly irrelevant however as nobody else is going to use that library name unless they're trying to break things. > >> 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). > > This happens because /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 has a SONAME of libc.so > (which should be the correct place). The message is not harmful, but > annoying. Well the message should never happen unless ldconfig is processing the directory containing libc.so, right? It doesn't happen for me on Debian when I have musl's ld-musl-i386.so.1 in /lib and ldconfig processes the default library path. Rich