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

Re: amendment to shared library policy



On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:04:23PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> > On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:26:35PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > > Looking at the number of shared libraries in Debian which prelink
> > > has revealed to have undefined non-weak symbols (through incorrect
> > > linkage), I think we need an amendment to clarify Debian policy on
> > > such symbols. In a nut-shell, the policy should be that "No shared
> > > library shall contain undefined non-weak symbols unless it is known
> > > such symbols will be provided by the program dlopen'ing said library".
> > > Matching this policy, dh_shlibdeps should be performing a 'ldd -d -r'
> > > on each library in a package and issuing a warning if undefined 
> > > symbols are detected. The warning issued by dh_shlibdeps should be
> > > simply that "Additional linkage *may* be required for this shared
> > > library". 

> > Do you believe the wording proposed in bug #191369 captures your intent,
> > or is something further needed?  I'm not entirely certain how the
> > requirement "undefined non-weak symbols" maps onto the tools I'm
> > familiar with; running 'nm' on a shared library certainly gives a list
> > of undefined symbols, but gives no indication as to whether they're
> > weak.

> That's not where the symbol's undefinedness is relevant, because it
> could be provided by a shared library which is explicitly linked. 
> Using ldd as above recursively checks all DT_NEEDED libraries for
> definitions.

Then I definitely think the wording in Policy needs to be clear about
what undefined symbols it's referring to.  Do you have any comments on
the wording in 191369?  Is it sufficiently clear and precise to meet the
needs of the prelinking effort?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgppl6lAh65Lo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: