From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7324 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-wsnj@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: perl native musl, ldd Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 23:09:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20150402210914.GG4456@example.net> References: <551D65EF.9030802@safe.ca> <20150402161837.GA6817@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <551D87C0.4010409@safe.ca> <20150402184810.GF4456@example.net> <551DA936.2070302@safe.ca> 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 1428008987 22360 80.91.229.3 (2 Apr 2015 21:09:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:09:47 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7337-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Apr 02 23:09:47 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YdmN0-0004uR-Gt for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 23:09:46 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 31830 invoked by uid 550); 2 Apr 2015 21:09:45 -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 31807 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2015 21:09:44 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe08.swip.net; client-ip=93.174.90.30; envelope-from=u-wsnj@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <551DA936.2070302@safe.ca> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7324 Archived-At: 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