[uClibc] ld.so loading "false" libs

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 02:24 pm, Erik Andersen wrote:
>     *) Someone that cares about USE_CACHE should fix that option
>  up to be sure it works, and give it a proper config entry
>  in extra/Configs/Config.in, and rename it to something
>  more appropriate such as LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT.

Gentoo relies heavily on the cache feature and it seems to be working great 
for us :)
what i'm getting to is i can take up the ball and implement the features 
you've outlined (they seem to be within my technical grasp fro a quick look 
over)

i tracked down the linking bug i mentioned some time ago on the list to a 
missing patch for uclibc in binutils ... i mentioned it to mjn3 and he said 
he was going to take a look at it
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/uclibc/40_all_binutils-uclibc-linker.patch

>     *) At present, LDSO_CONF and LDSO_CACHE use the same names
>  and same structure as glibc.  This precludes
>  LDSO_CACHE_SUPPORT being uses in any sane fashion on a
>  dial glibc and uClibc system.  Just as it was necessary
>  for use to use a different name for 'libuClibc' rather
>  than 'libc', and 'ld-uClibc.so.0' rather than
>  'ld-linux.so.2' it seems that these configuration files
>  really ought to be given different names.

so like a ld-uClibc.so.conf ... the question is though, how to handle a native 
uclibc system ?  would we force the user to rename ld.so.conf even if they're 
not using both libc's ?  would we base it around UCLIBC_RUNTIME_PREFIX 
being / or could we develop another option, GLIBC_RUNTIME_COMPAT ?  i'm 
thinking Gentoo support here ... i dont really *want* to have to add cases 
for which ld .conf file to generate :)
-mike