Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:38:11 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Jason Evans <jasone@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8?=, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@FreeBSD.org>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com> Subject: Re: ELF dynamic loader name [was: sbrk(2) broken] Message-ID: <477EC363.90902@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <e7db6d980801041342k562a3459y39003036dc1a5528@mail.gmail.com> References: <477C82F0.5060809@freebsd.org> <863ateemw2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <200801032200.25650.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <alpine.BSF.1.00.0801031305340.39341@goat.gigo.com> <8663yac62d.fsf@ds4.des.no> <477E72FC.5070304@freebsd.org> <477EA466.6060204@FreeBSD.org> <e7db6d980801041342k562a3459y39003036dc1a5528@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote: > While this doesn't count as an explicit vote against the rename, we can > solve the chroot problem easily. I did this once already, but for some > reason never got around to committing it. > > However, renaming ld-elf.so.1 is a bad idea in general. Yes, it would > have been better to have had the arch name in there from the start, but > it doesn't. It is unfortunate, but I feel that changing it will cause > far more pain across the board than it would solve for the specific case > of chrooting i386 binaries. I don't think it is worth it. > > There are a whole bunch of references to the ld-elf.so.1 name. Not just > in our tree, but in external 3rd party code. Even things like gdb > "know" how to handle ld-elf.so.1. Getting those upstream folks to add > additional strcmp()'s for ld-elf-i386.so.1, ld-elf-amd64.so.1 etc will > be hard enough, and it will add another hurdle that minor platform > maintainers have to overcome. ld-elf-mips-be-4Kc.so.1 anybody? (ok, > that last one is a stretch) > > Anyway, I'm not absolutely against it, but I think it will be a net loss > overall. We'll have more pain than I think it is worth, especially > since the alternatives are much easier. I see, what about moving it into /libexec/<arch>/? Is it better approach? -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?477EC363.90902>