Re: [Ltib] Ubuntu 12.04 vs 10.04 libc.so libpthread.so absolute path removal

[Stuart Hughes]

On 30/08/12 20:57, Sale, Devin M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the base_libs.spec there's this little bit of perl code.
>
> # remove absolute paths from text search files (if they exist)
> perl -w -e '
>      @ARGV = grep { `file $_` =~ m,ASCII C program text, } @ARGV;
>      exit(0) unless @ARGV;
>      $^I = ".bak";
>      while(<>) {
>          s,[\S/]+/,,g if m,^GROUP,;
>          print;
>      }
>      ' $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{pfx}/lib/libc.so \
>        $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{pfx}/lib/libpthread.so \
>        $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{pfx}/usr/lib/libc.so \
>        $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{pfx}/usr/lib/libpthread.so
>
> which does what the comment says and leaves a libc.so.bak and lipthread.so.bak 
> in the rootfs.
>
> When moving LTIB from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 the *.bak files go away because the 
> file utility changed like this:
> On 10.04:
> address@hidden:~$ file libc.so.bak
> libc.so.bak: ASCII C program text
>
> On 12.04:
> dzq92s:~$ file libc.so
> libc.so: ASCII English text
>
>
> Why remove the absolute paths?
>
> What is the ramification of not doing this?
>
> Should the *.bak files be left in the rootfs?

Hi Devin,

I can't remember exactly why you need to remove the absolute paths (I 
wrote this at least 5 years ago), but you do.  I think it was so that 
you can re-locate the libraries to not be in /usr/lib, but without my 
notes I can't be sure.  Just thought of one more; another reason is that 
we copy (not build) the C library from the cross compiler.  If this was 
not build in a standard way (standard prefix), the paths in these files 
will be incorrect.

The *.bak files are left so you can see what was there before the 
change, and a change was made.  You can remove them if you like, but 
they do no harm.

Regards, Stuart