On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:25:19 +0200
Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 18/05/2020 14.29, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> > Hello Rasmus,
> >
> > On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:12:43 +0200
> > Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >
> >> I'm certainly open to other ways of solving this. But can we agree that
> >> it is a
On 18/05/2020 14.29, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> Hello Rasmus,
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:12:43 +0200
> Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly open to other ways of solving this. But can we agree that
>> it is a bug that the ldconfig done at build-time does not take
>> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*
Hello Rasmus,
On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:12:43 +0200
Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> I'm certainly open to other ways of solving this. But can we agree that
> it is a bug that the ldconfig done at build-time does not take
> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/* into account, and that that should not depend on
> whether
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:12:43PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> I'm certainly open to other ways of solving this. But can we agree that
> it is a bug that the ldconfig done at build-time does not take
> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/* into account, and that that should not depend on
> whether one has
On 18/05/2020 13.55, Martin Jansa wrote:
> This won't work, because as soon as glibc is upgraded with package
> management, the ldconfig files will be restored and there won't be any
> do_rootfs hook to remove it.
>
> Why isn't ldconfig installed in your setup in first place? RRECOMMENDS
> should
This won't work, because as soon as glibc is upgraded with package
management, the ldconfig files will be restored and there won't be any
do_rootfs hook to remove it.
Why isn't ldconfig installed in your setup in first place? RRECOMMENDS
should be enough to pull it into every image by default.
There are cases where one doesn't want ldconfig on target (e.g. for
read-only root filesystems, it's rather pointless), yet one still
needs ld.so.conf to be present at image build time:
When some recipe installs libraries to a non-standard location, and
dutifully drops in a file in
