Hi,
I think I spotted something by doing ICA (not all investigated yet).
ld.so.cache differs at the end of pass 1 and at the end of pass 2.
It can be printed with ldconfig -p, and then diffed, which gives:
--- ld.so.cache-1 2012-01-27 19:19:13.0 +0100
+++ ld.so.cache-2 2012-01
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I spotted something by doing ICA (not all investigated yet).
> ld.so.cache differs at the end of pass 1 and at the end of pass 2.
> It can be printed with ldconfig -p, and then diffed, which gives:
> Now, one differing binary file is grub-mkimage. Going b
Le 27/01/2012 19:46, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I spotted something by doing ICA (not all investigated yet).
>> ld.so.cache differs at the end of pass 1 and at the end of pass 2.
>> It can be printed with ldconfig -p, and then diffed, which gives:
>
>
>> N
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 23:52 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> I realize that some important lines for understanding my
> preceding post were in French. Sorry about that!
> The beginning of the diff between the two ld.so.cache
> said that there were 93 libs in ld.so.cache at the end of
> pass 1, and
Le 28/01/2012 00:01, Matt Burgess a écrit :
>
> OK, so running ldconfig just after pass2 should fix things up then, do
> you think?
>
Oh, I should not have used pass 1, 2: I meant the ICA passes.
Let us call them 'build'.
Running ldconfig at the end of build 1 (Section 6.64 - Cleaning Up,
for exa
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 27/01/2012 19:46, Bruce Dubbs a �crit :
> The beginning of the diff between the two ld.so.cache
> said that there were 93 libs in ld.so.cache at the end of
> pass 1, and 117 at the end of pass 2. And then
> I only listed the 24 new libs.
OK, I misunderstood.
> Well,
