| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:30:02 -0500 |
| 2 |
"Lucian Poston" <lucianposton@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> As mentioned last week, I created lists of "needed" libs and |
| 5 |
> "installed" libs. I was hoping that the difference would produce a set |
| 6 |
> of "missing" libs, but I encountered several problems with that, which |
| 7 |
> I discuss below. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Yeah, it's not as easy as it might appear ;) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The list of "needed" libraries is found by calling findProviders() on |
| 13 |
> all installed files listed in each atom's CONTENTS. It's inefficient, |
| 14 |
> but once I'm able to find a solution to the problems mentioned below, |
| 15 |
> I will try a different implementation to build a list of "needed" |
| 16 |
> libs, most likely by creating another method in LinkageMap (if that is |
| 17 |
> okay). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sure, basically just return the relevant field from |
| 20 |
linkmap._obj_properties. But makre sure you understand how library |
| 21 |
resolution works by reading ld.so(8), things like DT_RUNPATH makes |
| 22 |
things a bit tricky. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> libodbc.so; libodbcinst.so; libgdbm.so.2; libdb-3.1.so; |
| 25 |
> libcrypto.so.0.9.6: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.05/NEEDED.ELF.2: |
| 28 |
> 386;/opt/sun-jdk-1.6.0.05/jre/lib/i386/libJdbcOdbc.so;libJdbcOdbc.so;$ORIGIN;libodbcinst.so,libodbc.so,libjvm.so,libc.so.6 |
| 29 |
> app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0/NEEDED.ELF.2: |
| 30 |
> 386;/usr/lib/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so;;;libgdbm.so.2,libpthread.so.0,libc.so.6 |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> These libraries are needed as shown above; however, they are not in |
| 33 |
> the filesystem and consequently have no scanelf entries in any NEEDED |
| 34 |
> file. How are they dynamically linked when the library isn't |
| 35 |
> installed? I'm not sure what's going on with these libraries at all. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Typical problem with binary packages. That's why revdep-rebuild doesn't |
| 38 |
scan some directories. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> ld-linux.so.2 -> ld-2.6.1.so: |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> This is installed by sys-libs/glibc-2.6.1; however, it has no entry in |
| 43 |
> any NEEDED file. Scanning the library myself produces |
| 44 |
> EM_386;/lib/ld-2.6.1.so;ld-linux.so.2;;. I'd assume that the dynamic |
| 45 |
> linker would also have a NEEDED file entry for consistency, but it |
| 46 |
> doesn't. Is there a reason why? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Well, I've got the following in |
| 49 |
sys-libs/glibc-2.8_p20080602/NEEDED.ELF.2: |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
X86_64;/lib64/ld-2.8.so;ld-linux-x86-64.so.2;; |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
So not sure why you don't have it. Try rebuilding glibc, maybe it was a |
| 54 |
bug in some older version. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> libGLcore.so.1; libnvidia-tls.so.1: |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Similar to above, these libraries from |
| 59 |
> x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-169.09-r1 are installed and dynamically |
| 60 |
> linked to other libraries, but they have no entry in a NEEDED file. |
| 61 |
> For libGLcore.so.1, scanelf produced |
| 62 |
> EM_386;/usr/lib/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGLcore.so.169.09;libGLcore.so.1;; |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Same as above, I've got the relevant entries here. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
> libmix.so: |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> dev-libs/libmix-2.05/NEEDED.ELF.2: |
| 69 |
> 386;/usr/lib/libmix.so;;;libc.so.6 |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> It is a part of dev-libs/libmix-2.05 and needed by /usr/bin/nc, which |
| 72 |
> is in net-analyzer/netcat-110-r8. This library is installed and has an |
| 73 |
> entry in a NEEDED file, but that scanelf entry has no soname. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Interesting, might be a bug in that package. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
> A couple other libraries (eg libpython2.3.so.1.0, libview.so.2, |
| 78 |
> libatkmm-1.6.so.1, libcrypto.so.0.9.7, libglibmm-2.4.so.1), which are |
| 79 |
> part of app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0 or |
| 80 |
> app-emulation/vmware-workstation-5.5.5.56455, are located in |
| 81 |
> directories, which are not in portage.util.getlibpaths(). |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
See DT_RUNPATH in ld.so(8), and maybe look at the LinakgeMap code. |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
> As a consequence of the previous situations, the dict returned by |
| 86 |
> findProviders() includes all the previously needed libraries as keys, |
| 87 |
> but their associated values are the empty set. I'm unsure if these |
| 88 |
> libraries should be ignored or if some other action should be taken. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
To clarify: the keys of the returned dict are the soname of requried |
| 91 |
libraries, and the values are lists of all providers in the library |
| 92 |
path for the object. For the libraries listed above the primary thing |
| 93 |
to do is to figure out why the entries are missing on your system. In |
| 94 |
general when encountering an unexpected situation you should raise an |
| 95 |
appropriate notice so it can be analyzed. |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
Marius |
| 98 |
|
| 99 |
-- |
| 100 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 101 |
|
| 102 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 103 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
| 104 |
-- |
| 105 |
gentoo-soc@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives