On 18/05/2020 14.29, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> Hello Rasmus,
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:12:43 +0200
> Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly open to other ways of solving this. But can we agree that
>> it is a bug that the ldconfig done at build-time does not take
>> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/* into account, and that that should not depend on
>> whether one has ldconfig-the-binary on target?
>
> have you tried installing ldconfig and adding it to ROOTFS_RO_UNNEEDED? It
> might be an improvement to include it in ROOTFS_RO_UNNEEDED by default.
Thanks, but I don't think that will work:
self._uninstall_unneeded()
if self.progress_reporter:
self.progress_reporter.next_stage()
self._insert_feed_uris()
self._run_ldconfig()
so if the ldconfig package (including the ld.so.conf file) is just added
to ROOTFS_RO_UNNEEDED, it will be gone by the time we get to doing the
build-time ld.so.cache generation. And I think it has to be done in this
order - if some of the packages removed by _uninstall_unneeded remove
shared libraries, one doesn't want stale entries in ld.so.cache
referring to those.
> Please consider use-cases where writable filesystems ship without ldconfig,
> but a user installs it from a package feed when needed.
Do you mean I should leave /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ alone? I can do that. But
I'd say that also in that case the current behaviour is buggy - if any
package in the rootfs ships with an /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ entry, that entry
should be taken into account at image build time, regardless of whether
ldconfig is there at image build time or can usefully be added later via
a package installer.
Rasmus
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#138408):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/138408
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/74289052/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
