Re: LSB wrapper library
Stuart Anderson <anderson@metrolink.com> writes:
> On 3 Apr 2001, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> > > > IMO ld-lsb.so.1 should *not* look into /lib and /usr/lib, no library
> > > > should live there. We should keep the namespaces really separate.
> > >
> > > I think it ld-lsb.so.1 should look into /lib and /usr/lib and the
> > > distribution only needs to place libraries engineered to be compatible
> > > with lsb applications in /lib/lsb in case of ABI breakage...
>
>
> It seem like the lsb loader should not look in /lib or /usr/lib. It is
> only allowed to find the LSB libraries, which will be found in /lib/lsb (either
> a copy of the lib, or an appropriate link), or application supplied libraries
> found under /opt/....
Fine that we agree here.
> > If you only fork e.g. libc.so.6 and leave the rest you get the problem
> > that two dynamic linkers are loaded since all non-forked libs, like
> > libreadline in my example below, are linked against ld-linux.so.2. We
> > shouldn't load two different versions of the linker.
>
>
> Would it be possible to add a little bit of code to ld-lsb.so.2 to recognize
> that it is about to load ld-linux.so.2, and skip over it since that
> functionallity is already present?
It might be - I haven't found out yet how to do it. :-(
>
> BTW, Andreas, I think that working through a couple of scenarios to prove
> that this system will work and documenting the result, and needed changes
> is the actual intent of the cryptically worded sourceforge bug.
What kind of scenarios can you think of?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj
Reply to: