Re: libc6-i386 versus ia32-libs
Harald Dunkel <email@example.com> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Harald Dunkel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>Is it possible that the new ia32-libs doesn't setup ld.so.conf?
>>>After changing it to
>>>and running ldconfig I could run several 32bit applications (e.g.
>> The new ia32-libs package sets up /lib/ldconfig/* links for those dirs
>> and the new ldconfig from libc6 uses them. The three emul lines should
>> not be needed.
>> Please check /lib/ldconfig/ and the ldconfig -v ouput without those
>> entries to verify it finds those libraries. Maybe something got
>> screwed up.
> This seems to be not working as expected. For testing I have kicked out
> /emul/* from ld.so.conf again. /lib/ldconfig is:
> # ll /lib/ldconfig
> total 0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Mar 13 22:11 emul_ia32-linux_lib -> /emul/ia32-linux/lib
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 30 Mar 13 22:11 emul_ia32-linux_usr_X11R6_lib -> /emul/ia32-linux/usr/X11R6/lib
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Mar 13 22:11 emul_ia32-linux_usr_lib -> /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Mar 5 08:14 x86_64-linux-gnu-lib -> ../x86_64-linux-gnu
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Mar 5 08:14 x86_64-linux-gnu-usr-lib -> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
> But if I run 'ldconfig -v' as suggested the /emul library directories
> are ignored. See below. The man page for ldconfig doesn't mention
> /lib/ldconfig either. Is your version in experimental?
No, the normal sid version. What version of libc6 do you have? Could
it be that the libc6 and libc6-i386 have different versions? The
libc6-i386 shoul depend on a new enough libc6 package for ldconfig to
work. But I never checked that and don't have access to my sid system
> There is yet another concern: ld.so.conf also contained a search
> sequence for library directories (AFAIK). How is this supposed to
> work with the new directory containg symbolic links?
Hmm. I don't think there is a concept for the search order of those
links yet. The directory is ment only for system library dirs so there
should be no need for ordering them I think. User dirs should still be
If you can think of a reason requiring a specific order the links
could be prefixed with a number and sorted that way I guess.