[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Processed: Cloning this bug



Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
reopen 388489
thanks

Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:

Debian Bug Tracking System a écrit :
retitle -1 libc6-i386: Missing /etc.ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf
There is no need for such a file. ld.so natively looks on all
directories of bi (or tri)-arches directories. If you need to be
convinced just run: strings /sbin/ldconfig | grep "^/lib"

Clising the bug
Binutils doesn't. And in some cases binutils looks at ld.so.conf and
It does. Well it was not the case on amd64, but it has been fixed two
months ago in version 2.17-2 (see bug#369052).

I am closing the bug, please only reopen the bug if you have a
testcase to show what you claim.

Then what is /etc/ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf for? If 32bit
multiarch support doesn't need the conffile then 64bit multiarch would
need it even less, being the native bit-ness and all. Think about that
for a second.

Meanwhile here is your testcase step by step:

Create missing link so we can link (pending fix in ia32-libs):
% ln -s /usr/lib32/libfreetype.so.6 /usr/lib32/libfreetype.so

Test /usr/lib32 setup:
% cat foo.c
extern int FT_Init_FreeType(void);
int main(void) { return FT_Init_FreeType(); }
% gcc -m32 -o foo foo.c -lfreetype

So this works. Multiarch not being a requirement for Etch, I fail to see why the severity of this bug is serious.

Test multiarch:
% mkdir /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu
% mv /usr/lib32/libz.* /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu

Wrong. The purpose of multiarch is to remove bi-arch packages. With multiarch if you want to install a 32-bit glibc on amd64, install the package from i386. Not libc6-i386.



--
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net



Reply to: