On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:36:34 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I'm not sure whether or not this is a bug, but it sure looks strange. > > $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/ssh > openssh-clients-6.1p1-6.fc18.x86_64 > > $ ldd /usr/bin/ssh|grep ldap > libldap-2.4.so.2 => /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 (0x00007fad274fc000) > > /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 is a symbolic link to a symbolic link > which passes through a -devel package. > > /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap.so # openldap-2.4.34-1.fc18 > /usr/lib64/libldap.so -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.0 # openldap-devel-2.4.34-1.fc18 > /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2.9.0 is a real file # openldap-2.4.34-1.fc18 > > To cut a long story short, I fixed this by uninstalling openldap-devel > and reinstalling it. Now there is no -devel package in the chain: > > $ ldd /usr/bin/ssh | grep ldap > libldap-2.4.so.2 => /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 (0x00007fe8caf69000) > > /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.0 > > I'd like to understand how the original situation happened, because it > broke a supermin-built appliance (RHBZ#954185). I assume ldconfig > must have something to do with it. There is nothing unusual in the > %scripts of openldap (it just runs ldconfig as you'd expect), nor is > there any special openssh/openldap config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d. Some thoughts: 1) ldconfig does not touch the non-versioned .so libs (especially not if they are development-only symlinks), since it only cares about the run-time libs. It adjusts the SONAME -> FULLY-VERSIONED-LIBNAME symlinks, so .so.2 will point at the latest .so.2.x.y, for example. It would not recreate a deleted .so symlink and would not redirect it either. 2) The openldap-devel package contains a (harmless) bug, since it runs ldconfig in its scriptlets. It doesn't need to. 3) Funny things going on (f19 here), but haven't examined anything beyond this: # rpm -e openldap-devel # ldconfig -v|grep ldap libldap_r-2.4.so.2 -> libldap_r-2.4.so.2.9.1 libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.1 # yum -y install openldap-devel # ldconfig -v|grep ldap libldap_r-2.4.so.2 -> libldap_r.so libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap.so That makes no sense. In /lib64 it looks different (and correct), however: # ls -la /lib64/*ldap* lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 20 Apr 17 22:30 /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.1 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 336504 Apr 15 10:56 /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2.9.1 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 22 Apr 17 22:30 /lib64/libldap_r-2.4.so.2 -> libldap_r-2.4.so.2.9.1 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 358720 Apr 15 10:56 /lib64/libldap_r-2.4.so.2.9.1 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 22 Apr 22 11:18 /lib64/libldap_r.so -> libldap_r-2.4.so.2.9.1 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 20 Apr 22 11:18 /lib64/libldap.so -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.1 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 45896 Apr 10 16:52 /lib64/libsmbldap.so.0 -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux 3.9.0-0.rc7.git3.1.fc19.x86_64 loadavg: 0.27 0.17 0.26 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
