Re: musl vs. Debian policy

[Justin Cormack <justin@specialbusservice.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1743 bytes --]

On 6 Mar 2013 23:29, "Isaac Dunham" <idunham@lavabit.com> wrote:
>
> I started writing a short explanation of the musl installation for
packagers, and realized that there's one area that's inconvenient:
> $syslib/ld-musl-*.so.1 is a symlink to libc.so.
>
> Debian policy requires that any public libraries have a version number.
> Specifically, Debian Policy 8.2
> (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html):
> If your package contains files whose names do not change with each change
in the library shared object version, you must not put them in the shared
library package. Otherwise, several versions of the shared library cannot
be installed at the same time without filename clashes, making upgrades and
transitions unnecessarily difficult.
>
> 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:
>
> install-ldso: $(DESTDIR)$(LDSO_PATHNAME)
>
> $(DESTDIR)$(LDSO_PATHNAME): lib/libc.so
>         install -D -m 755 $< $@
>
> I realize it would also be necessary to adjust the rules for installing
libc.so, however. If the change is welcome, I could prepare a patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>
>

What is the idea of packaging Musl for Debian? I can see several options
but none of them seem very plausible. No other package is likely to require
Musl. A Musl based Debian might be nice but that's a very different
requirement. Maybe I am missing something.

Justin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2192 bytes --]