> On 15 Feb 2023, at 13:19, Adhemerval Zanella Netto via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/02/23 22:41, Joan Bruguera wrote:
>> While cleaning up old libc version support, the deprecated libc4 code was
>> accidentally kept in `implicit_soname`, instead of the libc6 code.
>> 
>> This causes additional symlinks to be created by `ldconfig` for libraries
>> without a soname, e.g. a library `libsomething.123.456.789` without a soname
>> will create a `libsomething.123` -> `libsomething.123.456.789` symlink.
>> 
>> As the libc6 version of the `implicit_soname` code is just a trivial xstrdup,
>> just inline it and remove `implicit_soname` altogether.
>> 
>> Some further simplification looks possible (e.g. the call to `create_links`
>> looks like a no-op if `soname == NULL`, other than the verbose printfs), but
>> logic is kept as-is for now.
>> 
>> Fixes: BZ #30125
>> Fixes: 8ee878592c4a ("Assume only FLAG_ELF_LIBC6 suport")
> 
> Patch looks ok in general, some comments on the test.  You used an old revision
> and then patch does not apply cleanly[1], could you rebase the patch and send
> a v2?
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/patch/20230215014124.4144451-1-joanbrugueram@gmail.com/
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Joan Bruguera <joanbrugueram@gmail.com>
> 
> We do not signed-off-by on glibc, so no need for it.
> 

https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Developer_Certificate_of_Origin says we do?

>> [snip]

>> +gcc /dev/null -o $testroot/lib/libsomething.so.1.2.3 -shared
> 
> We can not assume gcc will be presented in PATH, you need to use the CC used
> on build.  So pass the $(CC) on tst-ldconfig-no-soname.out rule and use it on
> the script.

(Indeed, GCC may not be the used compiler either, or specifically 'gcc' but some
prefixed or versioned gcc).