ldconfig when PACKAGE_BUILDING=YES (and linux ports)

[Boris Samorodov]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:14:30 -0400 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 03:20:49PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:38:29 -0400 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 02:09:47AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:58:47 +0200 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > > > Boris Samorodov p????e v so 04. 08. 2007 v 01:30 +0400:
> > > > 
> > > > > > Seems that running ldconfig while building a package at package
> > > > > > cluster (i.e. when PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined) is quite useless. [1]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To be more specific I'm interested at linux ports. ATM we run linux
> > > > > > ldconfig (using linuxulator) _at package building_. Hence to create a
> > > > > > package for FC6 port we should change compat.linux.osrelease (which I
> > > > > > don't like and try to avoid). If the "ldconfig" stage may be skipped
> > > > > > when PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined then things get way too easier both
> > > > > > for default kernel linux.osrelease and default linux_base port change.
> > > > 
> > > > > I don't follow - what is the problem?
> > > > 
> > > > An FC6 port can't be build (and more specific -- linux-fc6 ldconfig
> > > > doesn't run) with current default compat.linux.osrelease=2.4.2. So
> > > > this sysctl should be changed to 2.6.16 for package building sake.
> > > > When the default compat.linux.osrelease will be switched to 2.6.16 we
> > > > will get the other way round problem if we try to build and FC4 port.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't like the status quo and want to find a way to siplify it.
> > 
> > > That's a kernel problem, not a ldconfig problem.
> > 
> > Kris, now I don't follow. Can you explain what did you mean?

> ldconfig is just a symptom.  If you make it so ldconfig doesn't run

So far nobody said if running ldconfig for package building is useless
(as I suspect). If it's useless then axing this process doesn't do any
harm. But it may help building most of linux-2.6 ports (which use the
only one linux binary -- ldconfig -- when building/packaging). And
even more, packages may be created at any FreeBSD version for any
FreeBSD version. [1]

That is what I try to discuss.

> then you'll just run into the next problem from another 2.6.x binary
> being run.  The fix is to get 2.6.16 kernel support good enough so
> that it can a) run 2.4 binaries in a backwards compatible mode (this
> is required anyway, you need to be able to run both binaries on the
> same system), b) be made default.

While you may be right I can't comment in details here. But anyway
seems that problems building an FC6 package at 7-x jail at 6-x host
may exist very long since now. And this problem doen't exist at the
scenario [1] I try to discuss.


WBR
-- 
bsam