* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton @ 2010-09-16 11:28 Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-16 11:41 ` Lionel Landwerlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-16 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hello, In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but no file ld.so.conf. The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files there from ld.so.conf, like so: include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton /etc/ld.so.conf file? If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? Thanks, Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-16 11:28 [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-16 11:41 ` Lionel Landwerlin 2010-09-16 17:30 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Lionel Landwerlin @ 2010-09-16 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Yeah, having a an ld.so.conf which includes every files within /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf would be great ! Regards, -- Lionel Landwerlin On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but > no file ld.so.conf. > The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files > there from ld.so.conf, like so: > > include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf > > I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton > /etc/ld.so.conf file? > If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-16 11:41 ` Lionel Landwerlin @ 2010-09-16 17:30 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-16 17:47 ` Lionel Landwerlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-16 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi, On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Lionel Landwerlin <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, having a an ld.so.conf which includes every files within > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf would be great ! Unfortunately, it seems that uClibc ldconfig does not support 'include' statements in ld.so.conf. Based on this observation, I'd say that directory ld.so.conf.d is only relevant in case of glibc, is that correct? Why then is it in the skeleton? Thanks, Thomas > > Regards, > > -- > Lionel Landwerlin > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire > <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but >> no file ld.so.conf. >> The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files >> there from ld.so.conf, like so: >> >> include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf >> >> I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton >> /etc/ld.so.conf file? >> If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-16 17:30 ` Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-16 17:47 ` Lionel Landwerlin 2010-09-19 10:44 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Lionel Landwerlin @ 2010-09-16 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Well buildroot does support external toolchains, including a glibc one. Regards, -- Lionel Landwerlin Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 ? 19:30 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a ?crit : > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Lionel Landwerlin > <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, having a an ld.so.conf which includes every files within > > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf would be great ! > > Unfortunately, it seems that uClibc ldconfig does not support > 'include' statements in ld.so.conf. > > Based on this observation, I'd say that directory ld.so.conf.d is only > relevant in case of glibc, is that correct? Why then is it in the > skeleton? > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Lionel Landwerlin > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire > > <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but > >> no file ld.so.conf. > >> The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files > >> there from ld.so.conf, like so: > >> > >> include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf > >> > >> I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton > >> /etc/ld.so.conf file? > >> If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? > >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-16 17:47 ` Lionel Landwerlin @ 2010-09-19 10:44 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-19 11:19 ` Lionel Landwerlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-19 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Lionel Landwerlin <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: > Well buildroot does support external toolchains, including a glibc one. Agreed, but since this is not the default, why is there an ld.so.conf.d directory in the default skeleton? In my opinion, this is confusing. Having an empty ld.so.conf file would be clearer to buildroot users. Best regards, Thomas > > Regards, > > -- > Lionel Landwerlin > > Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 ? 19:30 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a > ?crit : >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Lionel Landwerlin >> <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yeah, having a an ld.so.conf which includes every files within >> > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf would be great ! >> >> Unfortunately, it seems that uClibc ldconfig does not support >> 'include' statements in ld.so.conf. >> >> Based on this observation, I'd say that directory ld.so.conf.d is only >> relevant in case of glibc, is that correct? Why then is it in the >> skeleton? >> >> Thanks, >> Thomas >> >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > -- >> > Lionel Landwerlin >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire >> > <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but >> >> no file ld.so.conf. >> >> The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files >> >> there from ld.so.conf, like so: >> >> >> >> include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf >> >> >> >> I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton >> >> /etc/ld.so.conf file? >> >> If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? >> >> >> > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-19 10:44 ` Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-19 11:19 ` Lionel Landwerlin 2010-09-19 14:39 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Lionel Landwerlin @ 2010-09-19 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Indeed... Maybe the might be created after the skeleton copy. If we're using a uclibc toolchain, then create a single ld.so.conf file, otherwise create an ld.so.conf.d directory and with a ld.so.conf file including *.conf files from ld.so.conf.d. What do think ? Regards, -- Lionel Landwerlin Le dimanche 19 septembre 2010 ? 12:44 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a ?crit : > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Lionel Landwerlin > <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well buildroot does support external toolchains, including a glibc one. > > Agreed, but since this is not the default, why is there an > ld.so.conf.d directory in the default skeleton? In my opinion, this is > confusing. > Having an empty ld.so.conf file would be clearer to buildroot users. > > Best regards, > Thomas > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Lionel Landwerlin > > > > Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 ? 19:30 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a > > ?crit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Lionel Landwerlin > >> <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Yeah, having a an ld.so.conf which includes every files within > >> > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf would be great ! > >> > >> Unfortunately, it seems that uClibc ldconfig does not support > >> 'include' statements in ld.so.conf. > >> > >> Based on this observation, I'd say that directory ld.so.conf.d is only > >> relevant in case of glibc, is that correct? Why then is it in the > >> skeleton? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Thomas > >> > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Lionel Landwerlin > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire > >> > <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but > >> >> no file ld.so.conf. > >> >> The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files > >> >> there from ld.so.conf, like so: > >> >> > >> >> include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf > >> >> > >> >> I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton > >> >> /etc/ld.so.conf file? > >> >> If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-19 11:19 ` Lionel Landwerlin @ 2010-09-19 14:39 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-21 6:51 ` Thomas Petazzoni 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-19 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi, On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Lionel Landwerlin <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed... > > Maybe the might be created after the skeleton copy. If we're using a > uclibc toolchain, then create a single ld.so.conf file, otherwise create > an ld.so.conf.d directory and with a ld.so.conf file including *.conf > files from ld.so.conf.d. > > What do think ? That looks like a good solution. In case of uClibc though, the parsing of ld.so.conf is a configurable option (LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT), so before generating an ld.so.conf we should check whether that option is set. Best regards, Thomas > > Regards, > > -- > Lionel Landwerlin > > Le dimanche 19 septembre 2010 ? 12:44 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a > ?crit : >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Lionel Landwerlin >> <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Well buildroot does support external toolchains, including a glibc one. >> >> Agreed, but since this is not the default, why is there an >> ld.so.conf.d directory in the default skeleton? In my opinion, this is >> confusing. >> Having an empty ld.so.conf file would be clearer to buildroot users. >> >> Best regards, >> Thomas >> >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > -- >> > Lionel Landwerlin >> > >> > Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 ? 19:30 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a >> > ?crit : >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Lionel Landwerlin >> >> <llandwerlin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Yeah, having a an ld.so.conf which includes every files within >> >> > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf would be great ! >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, it seems that uClibc ldconfig does not support >> >> 'include' statements in ld.so.conf. >> >> >> >> Based on this observation, I'd say that directory ld.so.conf.d is only >> >> relevant in case of glibc, is that correct? Why then is it in the >> >> skeleton? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Lionel Landwerlin >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire >> >> > <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> >> >> In the buildroot target skeleton exists a directory ld.so.conf.d, but >> >> >> no file ld.so.conf. >> >> >> The ld.so.conf.d directory is not parsed, unless you include the files >> >> >> there from ld.so.conf, like so: >> >> >> >> >> >> include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf >> >> >> >> >> >> I am wondering why this is the case. Shouldn't there be a skeleton >> >> >> /etc/ld.so.conf file? >> >> >> If not, how is /etc/ld.so.conf.d supposed to be used? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-19 14:39 ` Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-21 6:51 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2010-09-21 7:02 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2010-09-21 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hello, On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:39:24 +0200 Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: > That looks like a good solution. > In case of uClibc though, the parsing of ld.so.conf is a configurable > option (LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT), so before generating an ld.so.conf we > should check whether that option is set. We don't really support any other uClibc configuration than the one we ship in toolchain/uClibc/uClibc-x.y.z.config. If an user changes the configuration we provide, (s)he has to be ready for some build breakage, because we are testing the build of all packages only with this specific uClibc configuration. I don't think we can sanely enter the game that would consist in handling all possible uClibc configurations to know which packages need what. Concerning LDSO cache, the LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT is disabled in our default configuration. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton 2010-09-21 6:51 ` Thomas Petazzoni @ 2010-09-21 7:02 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Thomas De Schampheleire @ 2010-09-21 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi, On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:39:24 +0200 > Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That looks like a good solution. >> In case of uClibc though, the parsing of ld.so.conf is a configurable >> option (LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT), so before generating an ld.so.conf we >> should check whether that option is set. > > We don't really support any other uClibc configuration than the one we > ship in toolchain/uClibc/uClibc-x.y.z.config. If an user changes the > configuration we provide, (s)he has to be ready for some build > breakage, because we are testing the build of all packages only with > this specific uClibc configuration. I don't think we can sanely enter > the game that would consist in handling all possible uClibc > configurations to know which packages need what. Ok, I can understand that. > > Concerning LDSO cache, the LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT is disabled in our > default configuration. But then I don't understand why there is an /etc/ld.so.conf.d directory in the default skeleton, while glibc is not part of the default. In my opinion then, this empty directory should be removed (leaving the creating of the ld.so.conf* files to developers with a custom configuration). Best regards, Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-21 7:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-09-16 11:28 [Buildroot] /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d in buildroot target skeleton Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-16 11:41 ` Lionel Landwerlin 2010-09-16 17:30 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-16 17:47 ` Lionel Landwerlin 2010-09-19 10:44 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-19 11:19 ` Lionel Landwerlin 2010-09-19 14:39 ` Thomas De Schampheleire 2010-09-21 6:51 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2010-09-21 7:02 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox