Re: [PATCH] Take into account ${sysconfdir} in elf/tst-ldconfig-p.sh

[Romain GEISSLER <romain.geissler@amadeus.com>]

> Le 22 mars 2023 à 12:51, Adhemerval Zanella Netto via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> a écrit :
> 
> On 13/03/23 18:46, Romain Geissler via Libc-alpha wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately this did not work, patchwork was not able to apply neither
> I manually (thunderbird without extra configuration do not keep tabs if
> I recall correctly).

Ah… ok, I will need to figure out how to set up git-send-mail on my private computer then. I will re-sent the right patch later.

> The patch is not wrong, but building with a --prefix other than '/usr'
> triggers other issues:
> 
> FAIL: elf/check-abi-libc
> FAIL: elf/tst-glibc-hwcaps-prepend-cache
> FAIL: elf/tst-ldconfig-ld_so_conf-update
> FAIL: elf/tst-unwind-main
> 
> Which makes me wonder if we even support check without the canonical
> prefix.  The elf/check-abi-libc would need to either be unsupported or
> add another hackery to ignore the patch (which is the test essentially).

On my side the first 3 fail, and I apply local patches for. For 2 of them, I actually posted a patch couple of years any in https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-August/129984.html and there was a review but I never took the time to follow-up. I will re-post this one as well, updated according to the comment made back then.

For elf/check-abi-libc I apply since many years a patch to change the size just for me, so the test pass. Checking the history, there is already bug 14664 filled for this since years. HJ’s patch generated some discussions on the list back then, some saying this symbol should actually have never been part of the ABI, but hey too late, it is now, some saying it’s part of the GLIBC ABI so using any other prefix is going to break the ABI so it’s not ok, some saying that despite it’s part of the ABI, still it would be cool that testing glibc with a custom prefix should still not result as an error. And in the end it seems it stayed like this. Honestly I don’t know what shall be done here, that’s why I had always applied a patch locally on my glibcs and never tried to fix this one. But we can fix the others tests that have a proposed patch I guess ;)

Cheers,
Romiain