Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#13822 - [prelink] does not work on x86_64
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by Andrej Podzimek (andrej) - Monday, 16 March 2009, 19:29 GMT
Last edited by Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer) - Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 14:06 GMT
Opened by Andrej Podzimek (andrej) - Monday, 16 March 2009, 19:29 GMT
Last edited by Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer) - Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 14:06 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
On x86-64, prelink doesn't do anything useful. For each binary, it reports: Using /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, not /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 as dynamic linker I don't know whether this is a GCC or glibc issue or just a matter of prelink configuration. (Anyway, is there a workaround?) Steps to reproduce: Try to prelink on x86_64. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer)
Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 14:06 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Fixed in 20100106-3.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 14:06 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Fixed in 20100106-3.
insgesamt 0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 29. Jan 17:07 ld-2.9.so -> ../lib/ld-2.9.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 29. Jan 17:07 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> ../lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
It shouldn't matter where it expects the linker. We go the CLFS way.
Is prelink aborting or only reporting such a warning?
You need to run it twice because arch packages use the linker in /lib while binary packages (e.g. rar) use the linker in /lib64; prelink doesn't "see" that they are the same linker.
A solution for this bug would require either:
1) Modifying all arch packages to use the putatively "standard" linker in lib64
2) Patching prelink to understand symlinks
3) Wrapping a script around prelink to work around the bug (not a robust solution)