Default existence of 'ld.so.conf' in Debian base install...
[I sent the following on Monday to debian-devel, but didn't receive any replies,
so I thought I'd try debian-user. Thanks for any help.]
Hi,
I'm not a developer, just a Debian user trying to track down a 'postinst'
error in a package on a brand-new Woody install (very sparse, only base +
~10 additional packages).
So, my question is: Does Debian policy have anything to say about the
guarantee of existence of '/etc/ld.so.conf'. It's clear (from 'dpkg -L
libc6') that libc6 does not include it (even though that's were it would
appear it should exist, if Debian were to include it by default), and it
also appears not to be an explicit 'conffile' [1]. I further searched the
Debian Policy manual, but could not find an explicit statement on this
issue. Not much on target turned up on the debian-devel list archive.
My base Woody install does not have any '/etc/ld.so.conf', and I'm wondering
where the appropriate bug should be filed. The package in question above
assumes that '/etc/ld.so.conf' exists (tries to 'grep' it), and fails when
it can't be found. Should the bug be filed against that package (maybe it
should 'touch /etc/ld.so.conf' in the beginning of its 'postinst' script?),
or maybe libc6 should include, at the least, a blank '/etc/ld.so.conf'?
I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on this. Thanks so very much.
Take care,
Daniel
[1] Reply by Joey Hess:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200106/msg01397.html
--
Daniel A. Freedman
Laboratory for Atomic and Solid State Physics
Department of Physics
Cornell University
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: