Re: Dpkg-shlibdeps and libc5/6
> > i'm very sorry. now i remember : i used your fakeroot version compiled
> > without -lc (am i getting senil ?).
> > aj@dungeon:~$ ldd /usr/bin/cu
> > libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x4000b000)
> > aj@dungeon:~$ fakeroot /usr/bin/ldd /usr/bin/cu
> > /usr/lib/libfakeroot.so.0 => /usr/lib/libfakeroot.so.0 (0x4000b000)
> > libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x40011000)
> I think this is the best solution: libfakeroot should be just
> one library, statically linked.
> This way we won't have troubles when
No troubles, except that it doesn't work.
Linking a libfakeroot that was compiled with libc6 headerfiles against a
libc5 program is one sure way of getting a segfault. And I'm rather
sure that linking an shared ELF library (statically linked) against
an aout libc4 programme is a sure way to make the dynamic linker complain.
But never mind, fakeroot_0.1-0c already includes a libfakeroot built
for libc5 and one for libc6 (both dynamically linked, with explicid
dependancy agianst libc, to make it work at all), and it works
for both libc5 and libc6 programmes (and dpkg-shlibs works OK for it).
> building for libc4, libc5, libc6, libc7... or even when building
> something that is not linked with libc at all.
Not linked with libc at all -- Then fakeroot will not work
for that programme at all (it works by wrapping stat() etc, from
> I know current policy mandates that all shared libraries have
> to be linked with libc, but this isn't exactly a general-purpose
> shared library, and I think we could make an exception with this.
OK, here I agree (if it made sence). Libfakeroot already doesn't
behave like it should with respect to policy: it doesn't provide
a -dev pacakage etc. But that is because fakeroot-dev would be
utterly useless (an empty package at best, or I could put the static
libs in there, but they would make every package statically linked
against them stop to work).
 Oh, I just found a bug in those prerelease fakeroot_0.1-0x
packages. I'm rather confident libc5 programmes that do stat() etc.
under fakeroot will fail with them. But nobody noticed, anyway
(including me, I only saw it in the source).
PS, I hope you didn't mean to say that libfakeroot should be a
_real_ static library (.a). That is nonsence. the dynamic
linker doesn't excactly know how to link static libraries.
joost witteveen, firstname.lastname@example.org
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .