On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 09:20:09PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Aurelien and Sven,
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:19:12PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2024-01-23 17:40, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > Conflicting runtime dynamic linkers between multiarch packages
> > >
Hi Helmut,
I finally got time to look at your patch and do very basic testing of
it. Overall it looks good, I have a few points or questions.
On 2024-02-04 21:20, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> So here is an updated patch with a few notes:
> * This patch moves all the files including the runtime
Hi Helmut,
On 2024-02-05 07:44, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> So this confirms your initial suspicion on the actually affected case.
> Thank you.
>
> c-t-b has repacking code with arch-specific mangling (of slibdir)
> already.
>
Hi Aurelien,
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 09:43:53PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> No, it is actually needed. For instance using the arm64 cross-compiler
> on amd64:
>
> $ rm /usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1
> $ arch64-linux-gnu-gcc -o test test.c
>
Hi Helmut,
Thanks I haven't checked the whole patch yet, but here is a first
comment.
On 2024-02-04 21:20, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I don't think those -$arch-cross packages need the runtime dynamic
> linker at all. Unlike the libc6-$multilib packages, we don't use
> -$arch-cross packages to
Hi Aurelien and Sven,
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:19:12PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2024-01-23 17:40, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Conflicting runtime dynamic linkers between multiarch packages
> > ==
> >
> > Some architecture
Hi,
On 2024-01-23 17:40, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR: I brainstorm solutions and appreciated feedback, but no action is
> required at this time.
I am not sure I understood everything from that mail, but let me provide
a few answers.
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 10:32:29PM +0100, Helmut
Hi,
TL;DR: I brainstorm solutions and appreciated feedback, but no action is
required at this time.
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 10:32:29PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> This seems pretty much unfxiable to me now.
Unfixable was a bit too strong. With much help from Aurelien and ideas
from Enrico I
Control: tags -1 - patch + moreinfo
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 06:37:35PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> I have not studied the details, but this looks rather dangerous to me.
> If you install the runtime dynamic linker in multilib packages below
> /usr, but keep the native one at its current place,
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 07:39:04PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I shall rework the patch and also exempt multilib rtlds from moving. I'm
> sorry for not having realized this. I suspect that dumat would have
> reported this problem.
This seems pretty much unfxiable to me now.
Essentially,
Am 21.01.2024 um 15:25 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
> Source: glibc
> Version: 2.37-13
> Tags: patch
> User: helm...@debian.org
> Usertags: dep17m2
>
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> thanks for your answers on IRC to my design question. As promised here
> comes a patch that moves most files in binary packages built
Source: glibc
Version: 2.37-13
Tags: patch
User: helm...@debian.org
Usertags: dep17m2
Hi Aurelien,
thanks for your answers on IRC to my design question. As promised here
comes a patch that moves most files in binary packages built from glibc
from aliased locations to /usr. This excludes the
12 matches
Mail list logo
