Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Leonard den Ottolander пишет:
In the glibc shipped from RH I found interesting defines about removing
this dependence.
Any pointers (which files)? What exactly is it's bearing on this case?
Isn't removing the dependency enough?
Another case (after described here by Jindrich) may be same as in glibc.
Which case?
I mean the next lines in glibc.spec file
...
%define __find_provides %{_builddir}/%{glibcsrcdir}/find_provides.sh
%define _filter_GLIBC_PRIVATE 1
...
cat find_provides.sh EOF
#!/bin/sh
/usr/lib/rpm/find-provides | grep -v GLIBC_PRIVATE
exit 0
EOF
chmod +x find_provides.sh
...
Another words, this provides is present in shipped glibc. And we can
resolve symbols when start application. But no package is provided
GLIBC_PRIVATE and rpm can't install package correctly.
--
With best regards,
Andy Shevchenko. mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Leonard den Ottolander пишет:
In the glibc shipped from RH I found interesting defines about removing
this dependence.
Any pointers (which files)? What exactly is it's bearing on this case?
Isn't removing the dependency enough?
Another case (after described here by Jindrich) may be same as in glibc.
Which case?
I mean the next lines in glibc.spec file
...
%define __find_provides %{_builddir}/%{glibcsrcdir}/find_provides.sh
%define _filter_GLIBC_PRIVATE 1
...
cat find_provides.sh EOF
#!/bin/sh
/usr/lib/rpm/find-provides | grep -v GLIBC_PRIVATE
exit 0
EOF
chmod +x find_provides.sh
...
Another words, this provides is present in shipped glibc. And we can
resolve symbols when start application. But no package is provided
GLIBC_PRIVATE and rpm can't install package correctly.
--
With best regards,
Andy Shevchenko. mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Leonard den Ottolander wrote: Hi Roland, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 23:17 +0100, Roland Illig wrote: If you insist on this fix, please put the 0 at the beginning of the line. Otherwise it's likely to be missed. Please do :) -#if !defined(HAVE_ISSETUGID) ... +#if 0 /* was: !defined(HAVE_ISSETUGID) ... */ I think this is the best way to change it, since it cannot have problems with operator precedence (imagine #if foo || bar 0). Roland ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Andy, On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 10:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: In the glibc shipped from RH I found interesting defines about removing this dependence. Any pointers (which files)? What exactly is it's bearing on this case? Isn't removing the dependency enough? Another case (after described here by Jindrich) may be same as in glibc. Which case? Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Pavel, I assume this is caused by one of the recent changes you've made. I haven't seen this ever before. Installing an rpm build from a distchecked tarball from a few days ago fails with the following error: $ sudo rpm -Fv /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/mc-4.6.1a-1.lj.i386.rpm Password: error: Failed dependencies: ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE) is needed by mc-4.6.1a-1.lj.i386 The same procedure with a tarball just a few days older doesn't give me this problem. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 18:30 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: Hi Pavel, I assume this is caused by one of the recent changes you've made. I haven't seen this ever before. Installing an rpm build from a distchecked tarball from a few days ago fails with the following error: $ sudo rpm -Fv /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/mc-4.6.1a-1.lj.i386.rpm Password: error: Failed dependencies: ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE) is needed by mc-4.6.1a-1.lj.i386 The same procedure with a tarball just a few days older doesn't give me this problem. nm mc shows that the only symbol from GLIBC_PRIVATE is __libc_enable_secure. Search for __libc_enable_secure finds it in two places: intl/dcigettext.c - it's only used if that file is compiled as part of libc, which is not the case. slang/slcommon.c - this one uses __libc_enable_secure when glibc 2.x and newer is used. So, I guess it's upgrading S-Lang that introduced this problem. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Pavel, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 14:22 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: nm mc shows that the only symbol from GLIBC_PRIVATE is __libc_enable_secure. Search for __libc_enable_secure finds it in two places: intl/dcigettext.c - it's only used if that file is compiled as part of libc, which is not the case. slang/slcommon.c - this one uses __libc_enable_secure when glibc 2.x and newer is used. So, I guess it's upgrading S-Lang that introduced this problem. He he. I see the same issue indeed exists with my 2005-11-10 CVS checkout + slang2. Any suggestions on how to fix this? Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 21:05 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: He he. I see the same issue indeed exists with my 2005-11-10 CVS checkout + slang2. Any suggestions on how to fix this? You are going the right thing :-) Ask S-Lang developers. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Pavel, list, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 14:22 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: nm mc shows that the only symbol from GLIBC_PRIVATE is __libc_enable_secure. Search for __libc_enable_secure finds it in two places: intl/dcigettext.c - it's only used if that file is compiled as part of libc, which is not the case. slang/slcommon.c - this one uses __libc_enable_secure when glibc 2.x and newer is used. So, I guess it's upgrading S-Lang that introduced this problem. I've removed the dependency on __libc_enable_secure in slcommon.c. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Leonard, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 21:53 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: Hi Pavel, list, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 14:22 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: nm mc shows that the only symbol from GLIBC_PRIVATE is __libc_enable_secure. Search for __libc_enable_secure finds it in two places: intl/dcigettext.c - it's only used if that file is compiled as part of libc, which is not the case. slang/slcommon.c - this one uses __libc_enable_secure when glibc 2.x and newer is used. So, I guess it's upgrading S-Lang that introduced this problem. I've removed the dependency on __libc_enable_secure in slcommon.c. Please correct the ChangeLog entry: * slcommon.c (_pSLsecure_issetugid): Remove dependency on glibc private function __libc_enable_secure(). __libc_enable_secure is not a function, but int. The fix: http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/mc/mc/slang/slcommon.c.diff?r1=1.1r2=1.2 that is done is a bad hack that just confuses a reader of code, please consider removing references to __libc_enable_secure completely. Jindrich -- Jindrich Novy [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/ (o_ _o) //\ The worst evil in the world is refusal to think. //\ V_/_ _\_V ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Jindrich, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 22:07 +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: The __libc_enable_secure usage in slcommon.c is easy to fix as there's a sufficient workaround present in the code I've already committed a similar patch. But thanks anyway. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Jindrich, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 22:22 +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: __libc_enable_secure is not a function, but int. Oops. Fixed the Changelog. The fix: http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/mc/mc/slang/slcommon.c.diff?r1=1.1r2=1.2 that is done is a bad hack that just confuses a reader of code, please consider removing references to __libc_enable_secure completely. AFAICT it's not unusual to fix such issues with a minimal diff. I could remove the entire block, but I might just wait for this to be fixed upstream. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Leonard den Ottolander wrote: AFAICT it's not unusual to fix such issues with a minimal diff. If you insist on this fix, please put the 0 at the beginning of the line. Otherwise it's likely to be missed. I could remove the entire block, but I might just wait for this to be fixed upstream. Do you really think they will fix it? Roland ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Depency on ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE)
Hi Roland, On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 23:17 +0100, Roland Illig wrote: If you insist on this fix, please put the 0 at the beginning of the line. Otherwise it's likely to be missed. Please do :) Do you really think they will fix it? Well who knows. I've subscribed to the slang user list, traffic seems to be low and proski butted in, so yes, maybe. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
