Re: mandate ldconfig -X?
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 12:35:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > >>>>> "Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe@orcus.priv.at> writes:
> >
> > Robbe> For one, it is unnecessary, and wastes time. But more
> > Robbe> importantly, the Hurd has no ld.so.cache, which kills
> > Robbe> reason 2 on this platform. Debian GNU/Hurd systems also
> > Robbe> don't have reason 1, so there is currently no real ldconfig
> > Robbe> program on the Hurd. Rather than writing a program that's
> > Robbe> completely pointless, I'd rather we called ldconfig
> > Robbe> correcly, i.e. with the -X parameter. "ldconfig -X" will
> > Robbe> just do nothing on the Hurd.
> >
> > I fail to see:
> >
> > What is wrong with the current practise on the Hurd, where ldconfig
> > is a do nothing program?
>
> We could make it bail out with an error if something is requested which
> isn't implemented. Sometimes, debian/rules scripts run ldconfig to set
> links. So we want to provide an ldconfig dummy script which will error out
> for any unsupported operation, and only return success silently for
> operations which are unnecessary on the Hurd (as rebuilding the cache).
FYI, glibc 2.2.3-5 has a script for ldconfig on hurd. Let me know how it
works in this repsect.
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: