From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 15 18:34:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201D516A400 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:34:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E1143D53 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:34:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id k3FIYfX9001489; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:34:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20060415.122657.111699385.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: References: <20060415.120640.28764842.imp@bsdimp.com> <20060415.122657.111699385.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) Cc: victor@bsdes.net, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Missing dependencies on shared libraries X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:34:47 -0000 On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: > Daniel Eischen writes: > : On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > In message: > : > Daniel Eischen writes: > : > : On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > : > : > In message: > : > : > Daniel Eischen writes: > : > : > : On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: > : > : > : > : > : > : > Hi, > : > : > : > I found that ldd doesn't report libc as a dependency on most (all?) > : > : > : > libraries: > : > : > : > > : > : > : > pato> ldd /usr/lib/libfetch.so > : > : > : > /usr/lib/libfetch.so: > : > : > : > libssl.so.3 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0x4816a000) > : > : > : > libcrypto.so.3 => /lib/libcrypto.so.3 (0x48198000) > : > : > : > > : > : > : > does anyone know why? > : > : > : > : > : > : AFAIK, it's being worked on. It's not just libc either, -pthread > : > : > : also has to start linking to libpthread. > : > : > > : > : > We don't record libc dependencies into shared libraries right now. If > : > : > we did, that would create some problems and solve some problems. With > : > : > symbol versioning, it most likely will become moot, since we'll never > : > : > have to bump libc major version again... > : > : > : > : kan stated he was working on doing this, which is what I was > : > : referring to above. > : > > : > That makes sense. If you explicitly include libc on the command line > : > to build the library, it is included... > : > : Here's the link to his original reply to -current. Also, if you > : look at linux shared libraries, you'll note they have dependencies > : to libc. > > I guess what I'm saying is that on FreeBSD, the system built shared > libraries don't have libc recorded in them because we don't add -lc on > the commnad line to build them. Other libraries do have it recorded > in them, for example I have libxvidcore.so from some port on my > system: I guess the original poster confused me. He said in another reply to this thread that adding -lc failed to record a dependency on libc. But whatever, I think we're in agreement no matter how much we try to imply we're not :-) -- DE