Hi, On 2014-11-14 09:47:48 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > In https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354631#27 Clint > writes: > > [...] the problem is that user/group lookups are disabled in the > -static build because glibc's NSS ABI is unstable and static > binaries still need to load NSS modules dynamically.
Isn't it possible to get this NSS code in the static binary instead of having to load modules dynamically? > If we re-enable lookups, then zsh-static will segfault on any major > libc upgrade. I don't know what the best solution here is. > > That IMHO explains well why a statically complied binary still needs > dynamically linked libraries -- which may change their ABI _with_ an > SONAME bump, so no bug in libc6, So, if the libc6 version is incorrect, the module cannot be found because of the SONAME bump. So, one should get a clean error with a meaningful error message instead of a segfault in such a case. > but zsh-static should likely depend on > > libc6 (>= $current_glibc_upstream_version), libc6 (<< > $next_glibc_upstream_version) > > if we remove "STATICFLAGS += --disable-dynamic-nss" from debian/rules. IMHO there are two better solutions, but this would need some change in the glibc packaging: 1. The dynamic modules are provided by a separate package, whose name depends on the ABI (which is typically done for usual libraries, where different versions are co-installable). The advantage is that libc6 and zsh-static upgrades could be done independently for the user (very useful in case of blocking bugs). 2. If this is not possible, glibc could provide a virtual package associated with the ABI, so that zsh-static could directly depend on the ABI itself. > So I'm no more sure if removing that line is really a good idea. > > OTOH: We are thinking about dropping the zsh-static package after > Jessie anyways. Popcon's "vote" is around 25 and such issues don't > seem to have bothered people too much since 2006. > > So if anyone wants to keep zsh-static and is reading this, please > _tell_ us! Removing zsh-static would be better than keeping a buggy one, in particular one that isn't really static. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
