On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:33:08AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >On 2018-09-16 02:38, Alexander Huynh wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I have a branch on Salsa [0] that would provide ordering for the two files I >> currently see placed in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/: >> >> * libc.conf >> * $(uname -m)-linux-gnu.conf >> >> I've also done a sweep of the rest of the repo, adding ordering to other >> files >> that could appear in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/. > >This only changes the name of the files, which is the trivial part. As >those are conf files, the problem is to handle them during the package >upgrade, probably using dpkg-maintscript-helper. During the whole >upgrade process, the biarch compat files (old or new version) should never >have bigger priority than the corresponding native one, as it might >render the libc unusable for some weird multiarch + multilib >configurations.
Ugh, yes. Especially considering that there might be all kinds of user-supplied config in here in arbitrarily-named files. :-/ On my Stretch amd64/i386 system I currently have: c30-smcintyre:/etc/ld.so.conf.d$ ls -l total 24 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 38 Oct 5 2014 fakeroot-x86_64-linux-gnu.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 108 Jun 15 2017 i386-linux-gnu.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 44 Nov 29 2013 libc.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 68 Dec 22 2013 x86_64-linux-gnu.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 56 Jul 8 2014 zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 58 Apr 15 2015 zz_x32-biarch-compat.conf which means that (for example) i386 system-provided libraries will be searched ahead of anything in /usr/local/lib, listed in libc.conf. It's even worse on Arm systems where "aarch64-*" or "arm-*" will all sort before "libc". Should we at least simply rename libc.conf to 00libc.conf to make this bit work? Adding a simple rename for that would seem to be the right answer as a start? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
