[PATCH 0/1] add USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D

[PATCH 0/1] add USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D

[Peter Seebach]

It'd be nice to support ld.so.conf.d, but it'd also be nice
if it were optional. I made the default be zero because I don't want
to change behavior on people without warning. Lightly tested, but
since I don't actually have a use case for this lying around I
can't promise it solves all the things.

The main intended benefit is that packages can install files
in ld.so.conf without stepping on each other.

The following changes since commit 91ca6b1b2e009381d8e813906654c0958eee7efc:

  lib/oe/rootfs: Improve error message whitespace (2014-07-28 12:20:56 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib seebs/ldsoconfd
  http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=seebs/ldsoconfd

Peter Seebach (1):
  Add support for ld.so.conf.d

 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc |   10 +++++++++-
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

[PATCH 1/1] Add support for ld.so.conf.d

[Peter Seebach]

The default behavior for USE_LDCONFIG is to use an empty ld.so.conf.
In some cases, it might be desireable to have an ld.so.conf.d directory,
and inherit files from there. This is a common enough use case to
justify support in the recipe, but not common enough to make it the
default. So, eglibc gets a new USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D value, default 0.
If it's set to 1, we create the directory and add an "include" line
for it to ld.so.conf.

Signed-off-by: Peter Seebach <peter.seebach@windriver.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc |   10 +++++++++-
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc b/meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc
index c357a13..8026199 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc
@@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ python __anonymous () {
 
 # Set this to zero if you don't want ldconfig in the output package
 USE_LDCONFIG ?= "1"
+# Set this to one if you want ld.so.conf to include ld.so.conf.d/*
+# by default.
+USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D ?= "0"
 
 PACKAGES = "${PN}-dbg catchsegv sln nscd ldd tzcode ${PN}-utils eglibc-thread-db ${PN}-pic libcidn libmemusage libsegfault ${PN}-pcprofile libsotruss ${PN} eglibc-extra-nss ${PN}-dev ${PN}-staticdev ${PN}-doc"
 
@@ -33,7 +36,7 @@ RPROVIDES_${PN}-pcprofile = "glibc-pcprofile"
 RPROVIDES_${PN}-dbg = "glibc-dbg"
 libc_baselibs = "${base_libdir}/libcrypt*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libcrypt-*.so ${base_libdir}/libc.so.* ${base_libdir}/libc-*.so ${base_libdir}/libm*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libm-*.so ${base_libdir}/ld*.so.* ${base_libdir}/ld-*.so ${base_libdir}/libpthread*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libpthread-*.so ${base_libdir}/libresolv*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libresolv-*.so ${base_libdir}/librt*.so.* ${base_libdir}/librt-*.so ${base_libdir}/libutil*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libutil-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnsl*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnsl-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnss_files*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnss_files-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnss_compat*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnss_compat-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnss_dns*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnss_dns-*.so ${base_libdir}/libdl*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libdl-*.so ${base_libdir}/libanl*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libanl-*.so ${base_libdir}/libBrokenLocale*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libBrokenLocale-*.so"
 
-FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}"
+FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d', '', d)}"
 FILES_ldd = "${bindir}/ldd"
 FILES_libsegfault = "${base_libdir}/libSegFault*"
 FILES_libcidn = "${base_libdir}/libcidn-*.so ${base_libdir}/libcidn.so.*"
@@ -99,6 +102,11 @@ do_install_append () {
 		if [ -d ${D}${sysconfdir} ]; then
 			rmdir ${D}${sysconfdir}
 		fi
+	else
+		if [ "${USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D}" = "1" ]; then
+			mkdir -p ${D}${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d
+			echo "include  ld.so.conf.d/*.conf" >> ${D}${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf
+		fi
 	fi
 }
 
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add support for ld.so.conf.d

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Peter Seebach
<peter.seebach@windriver.com> wrote:
> The default behavior for USE_LDCONFIG is to use an empty ld.so.conf.
> In some cases, it might be desireable to have an ld.so.conf.d directory,
> and inherit files from there. This is a common enough use case to
> justify support in the recipe, but not common enough to make it the
> default. So, eglibc gets a new USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D value, default 0.
> If it's set to 1, we create the directory and add an "include" line
> for it to ld.so.conf.

the patch is good but introducing another variable is not needed you
can cover it under US_LDCONFIG itself, ldconfig with empty ld.so.conf
will still parse standard lib search paths anyway

Secondly when we use ldconfig it generates ld.so.cache under /etc
so I hope we take care of this when we have ro-rootfs

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add support for ld.so.conf.d

[Mark Hatle]

On 7/28/14, 1:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Peter Seebach
> <peter.seebach@windriver.com> wrote:
>> The default behavior for USE_LDCONFIG is to use an empty ld.so.conf.
>> In some cases, it might be desireable to have an ld.so.conf.d directory,
>> and inherit files from there. This is a common enough use case to
>> justify support in the recipe, but not common enough to make it the
>> default. So, eglibc gets a new USE_LDCONFIG_CONF_D value, default 0.
>> If it's set to 1, we create the directory and add an "include" line
>> for it to ld.so.conf.
>
> the patch is good but introducing another variable is not needed you
> can cover it under US_LDCONFIG itself, ldconfig with empty ld.so.conf
> will still parse standard lib search paths anyway
>
> Secondly when we use ldconfig it generates ld.so.cache under /etc
> so I hope we take care of this when we have ro-rootfs
>

In a read-only root case, the ld.so.cache is generated in the cross environment. 
  I don't know if the cross ldconfig knows about the includes though.  Someone 
will have to check that.

--Mark

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add support for ld.so.conf.d

[Peter Seebach]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:47:30 -0700
Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> the patch is good but introducing another variable is not needed you
> can cover it under US_LDCONFIG itself, ldconfig with empty ld.so.conf
> will still parse standard lib search paths anyway

The reason I wanted another variable is to control the creation of a
*non-empty* ld.so.conf that would pick up other config files. The idea
is that if you wanted to add a non-standard library search path, you
could create a file in ld.so.conf.d. I didn't want to make the file
have contents unconditionally.
 
> Secondly when we use ldconfig it generates ld.so.cache under /etc
> so I hope we take care of this when we have ro-rootfs

I assume that's already working for the existing empty ld.so.conf you get
with USE_LDCONFIG=1.

It does occur to me that I don't know whether our cross-ldconfig knows
this syntax. I'll double-check that.

-s
-- 
Listen, get this.  Nobody with a good compiler needs to be justified.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add support for ld.so.conf.d

[Peter Seebach]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:59:20 -0500
Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:

> In a read-only root case, the ld.so.cache is generated in the cross environment. 
>   I don't know if the cross ldconfig knows about the includes though.  Someone 
> will have to check that.

It appears to be the same source, so it has the functionality at least in the
code.

-s
-- 
Listen, get this.  Nobody with a good compiler needs to be justified.