From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2886 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Justin Cormack Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:56:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6783fa14665004d75a44cf X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1362682608 30772 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2013 18:56:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:56:48 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2887-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 07 19:57:12 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 1UDg07-0001hW-34 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:57:11 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 25825 invoked by uid 550); 7 Mar 2013 18:56:48 -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 25812 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2013 18:56:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=specialbusservice.com; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6YGCj4PltTy/d15h+IAoDkhriYYaH11ZNhkC7FDr6D4=; b=WDm81jPT7B6S18vn8v4wPFC977tDsW3+RE0GbBpPzR2iFF63b8G8diM0ve8qnvfvPg zpqkvBUW7fDCuM9EhfLIoCgCQisXy39e35d8JZxZrz5VCIP/qaoxkQNfTzJxAAWacWXZ /fwV0EZevabpu391Jq7PzKv71txdVge/8ogcE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=6YGCj4PltTy/d15h+IAoDkhriYYaH11ZNhkC7FDr6D4=; b=ZpXeQWN/GYDxl4RME3g4/mId3AIzivLwCmHBAd7pocHQFfGUsPIteuipaN/jsC7kbz t7p6LNr1L+tuisZHCpDpfYZaDXC1OKNzbuL7vKGhH6h1sEelvL6+BrN9norYxRKEZsf+ tnDfPJLkF6h6GcYIVmQ84nNx1VbJoPnNSaW/k6l7JPnPINpwXxLsgY9xdvo9zIF3c5zy 6Ekepg6x5BX53vU/aO0ygcIm6gPkmjFYll7ka/qrm3k8ate3kIp7sFGaqz84QtTMVPr/ QV3sNLVM2qI4hr15CEm1aL+xJYn2BdMHD5eSb9RuzuqJwdl2gNzhIP0Yg3JJQA7TSDJ8 jL8w== X-Received: by 10.66.145.162 with SMTP id sv2mr4484796pab.142.1362682596050; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:56:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7e4IJcAiwbHLW7m0yZFxQmRZ8ZuIcxdW4/0gXoAvACXRfVDq0z6XLtxXyj5v0Ps6G6rbm Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2886 Archived-At: --047d7b6783fa14665004d75a44cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 6 Mar 2013 23:29, "Isaac Dunham" 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 > 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 --047d7b6783fa14665004d75a44cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 6 Mar 2013 23:29, "Isaac Dunham" <idunham@lavabit.com> wrote:
>
> I started writing a short explanation of the musl installation for pac= kagers, 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 cha= nge in the library shared object version, you must not put them in the shar= ed library package. Otherwise, several versions of the shared library canno= t be installed at the same time without filename clashes, making upgrades a= nd transitions unnecessarily difficult.
>
> The apparent solution to this is to ship only the dynamic linker, sinc= e this is all we need (the dependency on libc.so is disregarded when it com= es to running dynamically linked programs). =C2=A0But currently, actually d= oing this would be somewhat of a hack.
>
> Is there any prospect of installing lib/libc.so straight to ${LDSO_PAT= HNAME} ? I'm thinking it could be done via something like:
>
> install-ldso: $(DESTDIR)$(LDSO_PATHNAME)
>
> $(DESTDIR)$(LDSO_PATHNAME): lib/libc.so
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 install -D -m 755 $< $@
>
> I realize it would also be necessary to adjust the rules for installin= g libc.so, however. If the change is welcome, I could prepare a patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabi= t.com>
>

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

Justin

--047d7b6783fa14665004d75a44cf--