Re: mandate ldconfig -X?
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:54:15PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> Marcus> We could make it bail out with an error if something is
> Marcus> requested which isn't implemented. Sometimes,
> Marcus> debian/rules scripts run ldconfig to set links. So we
> Marcus> want to provide an ldconfig dummy script which will error
> Marcus> out for any unsupported operation, and only return success
> Marcus> silently for operations which are unnecessary on the Hurd
> Marcus> (as rebuilding the cache).
>
> Are you saying ldconfig can't update the links on Hurd? Can this be
> fixed?
Yes, this is what I am saying. It can only be changed by implementing such a
feature from scratch or building an ldconfig for the Hurd from the glibc
source. Let me however say that this is not a "fix", as there is nothing
broken in the Hurd in the first place. If you install the Hurd yourself,
and not use the Debian binary packages, you will end up with a system
without any ldconfig. We just include it in the Debian libc0.2 package
for Debians sake.
> My only concern is that the solution to another policy proposal
> presented to debian-policy (assuming it still exists) involves moving
> the symlinks outside of the package, and creating dynamic links with
> ldconfig instead.
I assume you mean #83669. It's targeted at making it possible to compile
packages for stable on a system running mostly software from unstable.
I think it is ill-advised to implement this functionality in Debian.
If you just need a few packages, you can compile them yourself from source.
If you do it on mass, you should have a stable chroot, or a seperate machine
for it.
To answer your question, this conflicts directly with what we expect
for the Hurd. But if it is necessary, we'll have to deal with it by
providing an ldconfig that creates symlinks. It would be a Debian
specific hack, as the Hurd itself does not require this (and we don't want
it either).
> This would allow installing multiple libraries at the same time, if
> the major number is the same, but the minor number is different.
I think it would not be to Debians advantage to allow that. It's much easier for
us if IanJ or whoever wants to build for old libraries exploits one of the
many possible existing alternative solutions for his problem (building on a
stable machine, in a chroot, install older libraries in some other three and
compile against them, etc etc).
> (please send followups to the most appropriate policy bug report).
Well, it is rather simple: Roberts proposal and the proposal derived from
IanJs conflict. However, if not ldconfig were used to install those library
links described in #83669, but some different mechanism (update-alternatives,
for examples), both proposals can be implemented easily. Otherwise, if
#83669 is implemented, we will have to cope by providing an ldconfig on the
Hurd that creates missing symlinks.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: