On 29 January 2018 at 15:11, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hello, > > You might have seen that we are trying to eliminate /sbin/ldconfig from > scriptlets which would speedup installation / upgrade of packages > **significantly**. > > One of cases Florian brought that in case of libcrypt/libcrypt-nss, > libraries > didn't have symlinks, so if it would not call ldconfig in its scriptlet, > then > any packages which depend on libcrypt.so would fail to execute. > > In 99% (this number came just out of my head, not a real investigation) of > packages, we always package those symlinks. > > So I'm going to push change to glibc which during build process executes > ldconfig in buildroot which is forcing to create those symlinks and your > package would fail to build with something like: > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > /usr/lib64/libhello.so.1 > > To disable this you would need to use `%undefine __brp_ldconfig` and you > really > need to make sure that you have %post/%postun scriptlets with > /sbin/ldconfig. > > The plan is to get this in, then get transfiletrigger in glibc which would > execute ldconfig just **once per transaction** and then start removing > scriptlets from packages. > Just FTR: it is one very good reason why those DSO SONAME symlinks *must be packaged*. If those files will be not packaged simple "rpm -Va" cannot verify those symlinks that they've for example been repointed to some other DSO files with some malware. In other words: any Fedora package which does not package DSO SONAME symlinks it is broken package, and it is completely independent fact from whole ldconfig discussion. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
