[Bug 227939] devel/boost-python-libs vs ctypes.util.find_library

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[Bug 227939] devel/boost-python-libs vs ctypes.util.find_library


--- Comment #9 from Wiktor Niesiobedzki <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #6)
> For one, find_library() works fine on CentOS 7 without .so.X.Y.Z -> .so.X symlink.

Probably because find_library has another strategy available on Linux -
invoking gcc in trace mode and extracting library path from there.

Maybe it's the way to go to implement the same behaviour for FreeBSD (though
use clang instead of gcc).

For libraries that do not provide ABI compatibility, either they need to
install .so.XYZ link to satisfy ldconfig requirements or ldconfig needs to be
fixed to look for so.X.Y.Z. Security note in ldconfig(8) man page specifies
that library is missing from hints file it will not be loaded by setuid binary.
So if I'll have setuid binary linked with boost-python it will fail to run, as
the linker will refuse to load boost-python as non-safe lib?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[hidden email] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"