Re: perl native musl, ldd

[u-wsnj@aetey.se]

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:40:22PM -0400, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> > I would not say reporting the symbols is a bug, rather that the packager
> > is kind of relying on UB. Is there a specification of how a program called
> > "ldd" shall format its output and which data shall be present?

> Packager Relying on ldd UB, sure!.
> Using ldd was the best way I found to list one package all
> dependencies (looking at ELF file type ans searching for
> required external components).

I am using ldd to find the libraries necessary for binaries and had to
adjust my "one-liner" scripts when I moved on from glibc to musl ldd.

I would suggest that it is your scripts which are to be (easily) adjusted,
not the ldd which from my perspective works just fine, for a purpose very
similar to yours.

> If you have a better way (more standard) to propose not using
> ldd that will be a good thing. idea?

There is no such standard because the concept of a "dependency
on a component" exists only in a context of a certain packaging
system. Software in general does not belong to a single such context,
so there is no clear notion of components, different parties do have
different views.

Rune