ldconfig when PACKAGE_BUILDING=YES (and linux ports)

[Boris Samorodov]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:55:53 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> (from Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:09:47 +0400):

> [CCing emulation at ...]

> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:58:47 +0200 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> >> Boris Samorodov píše 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.

> It's not only a ldconfig problem, it's a generic problem. The gtk
> ports run plugin detection programs (gtk-query-immodules-2.0-32 and
> gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders-32) at installation time.

Sure you are right. If we can solve this problem soon -- that will be
great.

> Do you think it is a problem when the non-default linux port is not
> available as a package?

No, the problem is in ability to run a linux binary.

> Currently I don't think it is a big problem
> (you can check the value of the sysctl and IGNORE if it is not ok).

Agreed.


WBR
-- 
bsam