On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 04:09:12AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Summary: > -------- > gen_ld_script is removing a vital unversioned symlink from some packages, and > this breaks libtool lt_dlopenext consumers at runtime.
> lt_dlopenext is given the basename of a library to find. In this case, the > (modified) code tries both libusb and libusb-0.1, with slightly different > failures: > > 1. lt_dlopenext cannot parse linker scripts at all, so the libusb.so from > gen_ld_script cannot be opened. > 2. lt_dlopenext only tries to append .so, it doesn't add version specifiers. > > If I manually add a symlink: > /lib64/libusb-0.1.so -> /lib64/libusb-0.1.so.4 > then lt_dlopenext succeeds. > Before gen_ld_script runs, it has the library and two symlinks in /usr/lib64: > /usr/lib64/libusb-0.1.so.4.4.4 > /usr/lib64/libusb-0.1.so.4 (symlink) > /usr/lib64/libusb.so (symlink) > At this stage, lt_dlopenext works still. > > Now after gen_ld_script, the unversioned symlink is replaced by a linker > script. The versioned symlink and base file have moved to /lib64. > /usr/lib64/libusb.so (from gen_ld_script) > /lib64/libusb-0.1.so.4.4.4 > /lib64/libusb-0.1.so.4 (symlink to 4.4.4) > Since lt_dlopenext cannot handle the linker script, and the unversioned > symlink > is gone, we now get a failure. > > Proposed Fix: > ------------- > I would like to propose that gen_ld_script does NOT remove the unversioned > symlinks, but instead moves them along with the versioned symlinks. Agreed, a minor change to what it does which makes a lot of sense, meaning /lib is consistent with what was installed, and the script remains in /usr. I concur also that static archives belong in /usr; they're only used at link-time. The only thing I'd ask is whether we can't just install libs to /lib as WilliamH suggested, and then move the static ones instead in the image, before emerge makes a pkg. I don't know what libtool's up to with *.la ofc, but I thought we stopped installing those a while back? Or it may just be that people mask them. > [1] I do half-expect vapier, flameeyes or patrick to shoot me down, and tell > me > the package is doing something wrong, but I've also got a chance of this > actually being a system breakage. The thing that troubles me is no symlink being installed for 0.1.so - I thought that was required. Doesn't affect that your proposed change is an improvement, though, and should definitely go ahead, imo. Regards, steveL. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
