Re: musl vs. Debian policy

[Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com>]

Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> 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...

ldconfig: /usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbolic link

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org