From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2900 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christian Neukirchen Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:08:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87mwuc5ob2.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> <20130307130424.GW20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87r4jr6pm3.fsf@gmail.com> <20130308004118.GX20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <8762117wlk.fsf@gmail.com> <20130309012712.GB20323@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 1362859711 1375 80.91.229.3 (9 Mar 2013 20:08:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 20:08:31 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2901-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Mar 09 21:08:56 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 1UEQ4d-00040U-22 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:08:55 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 30060 invoked by uid 550); 9 Mar 2013 20:08:31 -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 30047 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2013 20:08:31 -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=Jywbq9C8kxE6xVCF/gQop670rmdKZTlQ0eWWwttavos=; b=oo46zR4D9KUyg2MgRA6Pu5/9840bvnac9hAixUYaJdiTNjK2R5KpEm9W8aNiz4yE4L XGOz2gBzKSkU6GWGMs9ZDvqnQU6ZY1xMojLacbjiJdwmjK/OrNdo/3PnEcW4hFbjdoJ+ fiRgb7X0g4enAmc70YDMgMysoNCMN0HLlLLhDcZb54wRC5p0c57fCVpNx7OR3QU3b5ru VdSA8iAIWfe042TljmvUxnQNbqtwJgxM8jfHPd875s/dx5dNNPKlSLnYjXhgqSOG5GOi bJdywnqOeaf/9NtEE7oEoiwm0y1GViyMfEBzQzBxdE2MNm5nlCXgzpcfnDNlmTqet1a5 lYpg== X-Received: by 10.204.187.3 with SMTP id cu3mr2703812bkb.35.1362859699517; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:08:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130309012712.GB20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (Rich Felker's message of "Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:27:12 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2900 Archived-At: Rich Felker writes: > 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. That is weird... stat("/usr/lib/libc.so", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=255, ...}) = 0 stat("/usr/lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=583007, ...}) = 0 lstat("/usr/lib/libc.so", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=255, ...}) = 0 ... glibc printf crap ... write(2, "ldconfig: ", 10ldconfig: ) = 10 write(2, "/usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbol"..., 40/usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbolic link Note that /usr/lib/libc.so is a glibc file containing an ld script here. If I remove /usr/lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1, the message goes away. But I think it also had something to do with lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan 27 08:29 lib -> usr/lib/ I thought the issue was that it found ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 and tried to ensure libc.so points to it, due to the SONAME. -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org