| 1 |
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 17:15 +0100, Ed W wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 16:30 +0100, Ed W wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > > > and readelf gives me: |
| 6 |
> > > > |
| 7 |
> > > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.0] |
| 8 |
> > > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [ld-uClibc.so.0] |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > Which in turn leads to the multiple line output |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > Is no one else seeing this with a uclibc based system? Why am I special...? |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > This is more suited in https://bugs.gentoo.org |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As per previous email, see: |
| 21 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275725 |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I have submitted a patch there which seems safe, but not having many |
| 24 |
> uclibc systems to compare I just wanted to get a sense of whether my |
| 25 |
> toolchain is building things incorrectly versus actually needing this |
| 26 |
> patch |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Perhaps you could kindly run "readelf -d" on some binary in your |
| 29 |
> uclibc system and tell me if you have the "ld-uClibc.so" listed? If |
| 30 |
> so then I think the patch is sensible and required (and likely a safe |
| 31 |
> commit) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
uClibc bin # readelf -d /bin/ls | grep libc |
| 34 |
0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.0] |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
uClibc bin # qlist -eo sandbox | scanelf -f - -nB |
| 37 |
ET_DYN libc.so.0,libdl.so.0 /usr/lib/libsandbox.so |
| 38 |
ET_DYN libc.so.0 /usr/bin/sandbox |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
uClibc bin # qlist -ICv sandbox gcc binutils uclibc -e |
| 42 |
sys-apps/sandbox-1.9 |
| 43 |
sys-devel/binutils-2.19.1-r1 |
| 44 |
sys-devel/gcc-3.4.6-r2 |
| 45 |
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4-r1 |
| 46 |
sys-devel/gcc-4.3.3-r2 |
| 47 |
sys-libs/uclibc-0.9.30.1-r1 |
Archives