[CentOS-devel] ldconfig issue?

[Jeff Johnson]

On Apr 1, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Did others notic there seems to be a problem with ldconfig on Centos  
> 5?
>

Hmmm, its not the responsibility of ldconfig to recreate *.so files
afaik.


> It got apparant with the latest clamav update of rpmforge but it seems
> that ldconfig does not bild all the information that is required.
>

What information is missing? Does clamav have a DT_SONAME (see  
readelf.a)

Note also that rpm can fail to run ldconfig while upgrading.
The very last ldconfig in a transaction can be skipped wrongly
if the packages happen to be arranged that way.

Run /sbin/ldconfig manually if that bothers.

73 de Jeff

> Or as the report read on the MailScanner mailinglist:
>
>> And some more fun:
>>
>> [root at liquidity lib]# rm libclamunrar.so.6 libclamunrar_iface.so.6
>> rm: remove symbolic link `libclamunrar.so.6'? y
>> rm: remove symbolic link `libclamunrar_iface.so.6'? y
>> [root at liquidity lib]# ls -lra libclamunrar*
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 142039 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar.so.6.0.2
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  24434 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar_iface.so. 
>> 6.0.2
>> [root at liquidity lib]# ldconfig -v | grep unrar
>>        libclamunrar.so.6 -> libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 (changed)
>>        libclamunrar_iface.so.6 -> libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2  
>> (changed)
>> [root at liquidity lib]# ls -lra libclamunrar*
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 142039 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar.so.6.0.2
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     21 Apr  1 17:24 libclamunrar.so.6 ->
>> libclamunrar.so.6.0.2
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  24434 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar_iface.so. 
>> 6.0.2
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     27 Apr  1 17:24 libclamunrar_iface.so.6 ->
>> libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2
>>
>>
>> The issue doesn't appear to be isolated to just ClamAV, though.  
>> Look in
>> your libs and delete any linked .so file and re-run ldconfig. The .so
>> isn't recreated.
>>
>> [root at liquidity lib]# rm libbeecrypt.so libbeecrypt.so.6
>> rm: remove symbolic link `libbeecrypt.so'? y
>> rm: remove symbolic link `libbeecrypt.so.6'? y
>> [root at liquidity lib]# ldconfig -v | grep libbeecr
>>        libbeecrypt.so.6 -> libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 (changed)
>> [root at liquidity lib]# ls -lra libbeecrypt*
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 251704 Jan  6  2007 libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     20 Apr  1 17:25 libbeecrypt.so.6 ->
>> libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root    833 Jan  6  2007 libbeecrypt.la
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 340262 Jan  6  2007 libbeecrypt.a
>
> Is this something that needs to be reported upstream? Or is it  
> Centos 5
> specific?
>
> Hugo.
>
> - --
> hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org               http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
> PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc
>
> 	A: Yes.
> 	>Q: Are you sure?
> 	>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> 	>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
> Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAknT4AgACgkQBvzDRVjxmYEA5QCgrGnY/e5/0bWXRi6jEJI6ByPf
> LvoAn23lt58ucrqSv9WcUpu/e0qZGblg
> =Mms2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel