From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2883 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christian Neukirchen Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:17:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87r4jr6pm3.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> <20130307130424.GW20323@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 1362680293 7291 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2013 18:18:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:18:13 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2884-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 07 19:18:38 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 1UDfOk-0004cs-BB for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:18:34 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5290 invoked by uid 550); 7 Mar 2013 18:18:11 -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 5282 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2013 18:18:11 -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=VufwavO2PZcBYhDFIAfPu+1Lqlt9b7jcEnh9r7N1sv0=; b=Pjvl5OnDHqnL+6DdO4wql/NhYLdcERb453hgPaTpZjL+cuMN5czlOVnxC6V9oqbaBc /zB0jCaITL+VYz3qXg8trjqgNszfqftC45JWM54k94VcM+z1gETGdEGc+4ubgVnD7RyC yoLTJCBbYntRmBBaa2r57rvXdcqdgI8QOYa/uwY9KLTxwMCuj1S4OX4gZqwXKaV2/q4I 6vwLXzJZ72IcotVZYi51uU0bkNsVY9z715IodMrQrIhT79UpHhrlGFsyNl5PpV7zce6o DM/37kys+TqvbJe+JF+2r5Ct41AdmdVfZwv4tju7XB2tqYgP6EFi7RWfgEEYOPZzCiuJ AjZQ== X-Received: by 10.205.125.11 with SMTP id gq11mr13637894bkc.0.1362680278804; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:17:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130307130424.GW20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (Rich Felker's message of "Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:04:24 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2883 Archived-At: 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... ldconfig: /usr/lib/libc.so is not a symbolic link -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org