Re: -rpath and policy?
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 03:50:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> > Not that I'm a great fan of -rpath, but I don't see why that should be
> > true in this case. Multiarch will require keeping compatibility library
> > symlinks around for some time in order to keep compatibility with other
> > distributions, and when it comes time to change the PI the application
> > will have to be recompiled anyway.
>
> The only thing needed for compatibility is /lib/ld-linux.so.2 and
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2. Every other stdandard lib is found by ld.
>
> Multiarch will move libs from [/usr]/lib[64] to
> [/usr]/lib/<arch>-<os>/ and update the ld acordingly. That works
> flawlessly unless you have an rpath to say /lib/libc.so.6 (which would
> also not use the optimized /lib/tls/libc.so.6 and similiar so its bad
> already)
It may be bad, but it will at least *run*.
> Where should compatibility links point to?
> i386:~% ldd =echo
> linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00000000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x55577000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x55555000)
> amd64:~% ldd =echo
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0000002a9566b000)
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000002a95556000)
>
> Which of the two libc6.so.6 shoud it point to?
Whatever was previously in the location of the symlink.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: