ldconfig issue with raspbian, may affect debian too
Recently eglibc 2.13-38 migrated to debian wheezy and I updated raspbian
wheezy with it (note: the version in raspbian wheezy is 2.13-38+rpi1 but
the only source change from the debian package is to add a few tests to
the list of expected failures). This triggered some user complaints
about the videocore libraries supplied by the raspberry pi foundation no
longer being found, I presume this is related to the ldconfig tagging stuff.
<mike_t> after upgrade libc on raspbian I get problem with ld.so.cache.
the same problem has already been solved in glibc.
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-02/msg00120.html I hope it will
be solved in eglibc too
<plugwash> mike_t can you please be specific about exactly what version
you updated from and to?
<twolife> plugwash: i had an issue yesterday when upgrading libc6 from
2.13-37+rpi to 2.13-38+rpi1
<plugwash> mike_t, you say "the same problem has been solved in glibc"
but when I look at your link I just see mails disussing a patch, do you
know if the patch has actually been committed?
<mike_t> plugwash, see also the bug
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15006#c26
<plugwash> also have you rerun ldconfig since updating eglibc and if so
did that make any difference?
<mike_t>
http://www.sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=b39949d21179bd0b08a083e4f7e35d0c98e11294
<mike_t> yes, I rerun ldconfig. it not helps
<plugwash> mike_t can you run md5sum /opt/vc/lib/libvcos.so
<mike_t> 8bb7da46d40091720947eb67fb992799 /opt/vc/lib/libvcos.so
I'm assuming since at least one of the the libraries is in the cache but
isn't found by ldd that it's being misidentified as a softfloat library.
What I can't figure out is why.
My understanding was that if the easy way to identify a library failed
debian fell back on using the more painful to read elf tags. I grabbed a
copy of the library from
https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/raw/master/hardfp/opt/vc/lib/libvcos.so
and according to readelf it does appear to have "Tag_ABI_HardFP_use: SP
and DP"
Anyone have any thoughts on this.
Reply to: