Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:59:28 -0400
From: Dubiousjim <dubiousjim@gmail.com>
To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] firefox 19 and 20
Message-ID: <20130717205928.GB2276@zen>
Mail-Followup-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130626212843.GA18572@zen>
 <20130416171305.53014202@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:28:43PM -0400, Dubiousjim wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions with this. I did end up fixing it. It was a
> very idiosyncratic issue that I don't expect others to encounter, but
> just in case: I had manually created a /lib/libc.so -> libc.so.0.9.32
> symlink, when I was trying to install/debug cross-compilers on my
> system. I had lost track of that and neglected to remove it. apk audit
> --system didn't report it because it's not a file that apk considers
> owned. I didn't experience total build failures because I guess /lib
> isn't one of the standard locations that gcc looks for libraries, so it
> was just a few buildsystems that included -L/lib which would break,
> because this symlink would shadow the script at /usr/lib/libc.so.
> 
> (The only breaking buildsystems I came across were apk-tools and
> cryptsetup, and some of the stub files that various ./configure scripts
> try to build to see if various components exist on the host
> system---which is how I in the end tracked this down.) Anyway, that
> symlink shouldn't be there.

Oh, just noticed that the reason I had that bad symlink wasn't from my
cross-compiler experiments, but rather from this issue with Firefox back
in April. See the following...

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 05:13:05PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> There have been som issues with firefox-19 and now also with firefox-20.
> 
> To workaround it for now you can do:
> 
> ln -s /lib/libc.so.0.9.32 /lib/libc.so
> 
> the problem is some libc ffi in javascript.
> 
> -nc

So others may conceivably also have this bad symlink, and should also
remove it. It doesn't seem to be necessary at the moment. (Our repos
have firefox-21...and firefox-22 is available upstream, though I haven't
yet managed to get it to successfully build for Alpine.)

And as I explained above, having this symlink in place will break some
builds.

-- 
Dubiousjim
dubiousjim@gmail.com


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---