From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2897 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christian Neukirchen Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: <8762117wlk.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> <20130307130424.GW20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87r4jr6pm3.fsf@gmail.com> <20130308004118.GX20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1362755665 19420 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2013 15:14:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:14:25 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2898-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 08 16:14:45 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 1UDz0H-00019G-I4 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:14:37 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 32217 invoked by uid 550); 8 Mar 2013 15:14:14 -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 32209 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2013 15:14:14 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=JtfYbpazFqeiS0Ug1MsHsl9ZwZI5vsQpIac8nGrKYb8=; b=h9AtbBd4llBiX71KP2fDh5AZh7JbSG3IVsRnnmaPELPA50jMc4LIW1E2mzMtjGhHj7 pmNsx1b5VahbmuDT8MdbAmrzd+tmeuNdDRQ8P2L1v4k/LW8lM2t9pJEdGdXPP/hkJDZF ZvBFqHGvt42r/1mCF1SvFAPh75bWzari7NQQqzMA7s4DYtPMYtLPItFyFX3N1EUngKM+ jI7DmLHOn3eNxyHp+ak+KmWNbOetyghFlwwIwrd6T7/O7szH+2McRcKbFSrmpPZ1WzO9 Dbay/3XTEZa0XUE3YpME5wUp42zN5x36zmKsBSK23YGI0NtkbKcMLOTMpJ+DhN57kgTm rNaw== X-Received: by 10.205.26.67 with SMTP id rl3mr1018131bkb.62.1362755641719; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 07:14:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130308004118.GX20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (Rich Felker's message of "Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:41:19 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2897 Archived-At: Rich Felker writes: > 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. ld-musl-x86_64.so shouldn't appear elsewhere either. >> 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. -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org