| 1 |
On Sonntag, 18. Januar 2009, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm raising this as an extension of bug 253076, but also because I see |
| 3 |
> the potential for danger. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> To date, for an init script that has baselayout2-specific behavior, we |
| 6 |
> have had some variant of [ -e /lib/librc.so ] in the init script. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> On a multilib profile with no symlinks and a 64-bit userspace, the .so |
| 9 |
> file would be installed in /lib64/librc.so, and the check would |
| 10 |
> mistakenly have the wrong result. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> There's one fix that has started to turn up already, but I'm not sure if |
| 13 |
> it's going to be safe always: [ -f /etc/init.d/sysfs ] |
| 14 |
> This happens to work as openrc installs that init script. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I changed udev to only check for /etc/init.d/sysfs. See Bug #252493. |
| 18 |
The only place where librc checking is kept is only run on older |
| 19 |
openrc-versions which are no longer available via ebuild. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I hope this will make udev work on any system regardless of how /lib and stuff |
| 22 |
is linked. (For further analysis perhaps someone on a multilib profile can |
| 23 |
check where udev still has /lib/xxx hardcoded instead of /lib64/xxx or |
| 24 |
similar). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Should I nevertheless add such a blocker to udev or will that make update |
| 27 |
unnecessary complicated? |
| 28 |
RDEPEND="!<sys-apps/openrc-0.4.0" |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards |
| 31 |
Matthias |
Archives