lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Possible ld-so bug.
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:54:55AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> If you have different version numbers, you don't have this problem.
> So. I think that `install` and `mv` has to be linked static before
> such an install, perhaps even /bin/bash. There are other ways. I
> could modify the make file to install everything in /new/local/lib and
> /new/bin (/new instead of /usr), then merge everything by hand.
> This is a pain. I still think the solution lies with ld.so.cache. If
> ld.so did not reload its cache except after an explicit command, i.e.,
> `ldconfig`, and the cache pointed to already-mapped libraries, there
> would not be such a problem at all.
>

Doesn't the cache just contain the pathnames of the libs? So if you have new
libs with the same name, the cache points to them now.

Also, as someone else asked on this thread, shouldn't all the bins in /sbin
be linked static? So that if you do mess up, at least you can boot the system
single-user... With glibc now, everything is linked dynamic even if u specify
-static because of nsswitch. You have to go through hoops to actually get a
static binary.

the make install_root=blah is the safest. (there is such a variable, right? or
do you have to do make install prefix=blah?)

-- arvind

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.076 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site