On 2011-08-18 01:05 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: >> The biggest change compared to the previous one is the new patch 6 which >> tries to check that there is at least one free inode. Namely, if there >> aren't any, the sequence > >> rm -f /lib64 >> $interpreter /bin/mkdir /lib64 >> $interpreter /bin/ln -s $ldfile RTLD_SO > >> will fail in the third command which is rather embarrassing. This is of >> course far from perfect, if another process runs riot and creates files >> rapidly, you can still lose. Also, that part isn't really tested at all >> (except that it works when there are no ENOSPC problems). > > Nack on this. The right way to handle it is to create the directory under a > separate name, populate the symlink, and only *then* rm /lib64 and invoke mv > /lib64.real /lib64 via $interpreter. This minimizes the window when /lib64 > is missing, and just happens to also remove the inode problem as a side > effect (because we create all the directory entries we need before we remove > any).
Yes, that's better. Instead of hardcoding /lib64.real the directory should be created with mktemp -d (I think that's what you meant to do). >> Subject: [PATCH 2/6] Install the dynamic linker into RTLDDIR as well as /lib > >> Installing into both locations makes it easier to support downgrades. >> It also means that dpkg will fail to unpack our package if >> RTLDDIR=/lib64 and /lib64 is a symlink to /lib. Which is probably a >> good thing since that symlink has to go away. > > I'm not keen on this. Why would we want to install a second copy of > ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 to /lib? Nothing will use it there. Shouldn't we be > installing *only* to RTLDDIR, not to both? I don't have a strong opinion on this. Make sure to copy ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 to /lib in the prerm on downgrades then; if the downgrade fails during unpack, /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 is unowned. > And no, this won't cause dpkg to fail to unpack. dpkg happily traverses > symlinks while unpacking and would never notice that the two files are being > installed to the same location. It does if the files are contained in the same package, an example can be found in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=624724#10. > Otherwise, this looks good. I'll merge these up (with the above-mentioned > changes) and put it through its paces here. Thanks for stepping in. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
