Re: [HELP] libldap2 2.1.30 breakage?, guru for ld.so needed
Unless there is a related RC bug there, I don't think it's gonna
matter when the change is to get it in sarge (i personally have not
seen any RC bugs though...)
On 30/05/05, Torsten Landschoff <torsten@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> People following the OpenLDAP packages might remember this change:
>
> openldap2 (2.1.30-7) unstable; urgency=high
>
> * Stephen Frost <sfrost@debian.org>
> + debian/move_files: make libldap a symlink to libldap_r, as carrying
> two versions of this library around is more trouble than it's worth,
> and can cause glorious segfaults down the line
> (closes: #306258, #302296, #306546)
>
> At first sight this looked (for me) like making sense and having no
> negative implications. Of course reality was different - ldconfig had
> problems setting the right symbolic links.
>
> Today I found out the reason. It was not that it just removes symbolic
> links it can't make sense of. Rather the problem is that the SONAME of
> that library now does not match the name anymore.
>
> libldap.so.2 used to have the SONAME libldap.so.2 as you would expect :)
> Now the libldap.so.2 is a symlink to libldap_r.so.2 which has SONAME
> libldap_r.so.2.
>
> I wonder which implications that could have when applications are
> linking to libldap.so.2 (as the SONAME is no longer found).
>
> Therefore I thought it might be a good idea to relink libldap_r.so.2
> using libtool and create libldap.so.2 with matching soname. Now I wonder
> what will happen if some program decides he wants to link both
> libldap.so.2 and libldap_r.so.2.
>
> Suggestions how to fix that for real before getting sarge out of the
> door with this risk that I don't feel I can estimate?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Torsten
>
>
> BodyID:25699729.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
>
>
--
N Jones
Reply to: