On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 02:03:59PM +0200, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > Colin Watson a écrit : >> Surely whichever way you slice it you can't talk to pcscd until /usr is >> mounted. Does it really matter for this whether wpa_supplicant dlopens >> libpcsclite.so.1 when it needs it and starts talking to pcscd then, or >> whether it links against it directly and calls into it when it needs it >> and starts talking to pcscd then? Unless libpcsclite.so.1 tries to >> communicate with pcscd as soon as any binary that happens to link >> against it is loaded, which I don't believe to be the case, I don't see >> a meaningful difference here. Given that, direct dynamic linking is >> clearly simpler than dlopen. > > Yes, my proposal will not make wpa_supplicant work with smart card > support if pcscd is not started. > > Yes, direct linking is simpler than using dlopen. > > My proposal is to have wpa_supplicant in /usr and avoid moving > libpcsclite.so.1 around.
Well, sorry, but that just doesn't work for us. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/44194 for the background (which you've already commented on); putting wpa_supplicant in /usr is not feasible for reasons that have nothing to do with pcsc-lite. > You should have a look at the Ubuntu bug 378294 [1] "libpcsclite1 is not > found by sun-java-6 (jaunty)". Some software do not expect to find a > library in /lib. And yes it is a bug in the Sun JVM. SUN is working on > it. You've exactly anticipated my response (it's a bug in the Sun JVM). Such software is, thankfully, extremely rare exactly because hardcoding library paths is stultifyingly broken. In any case, that bug seems to indicate that the JVM is looking for libpcsclite.so rather than libpcsclite.so.1. If that is the case, the Ubuntu patch to move libpcsclite.so.1 to /lib makes no difference as yet; our libpcsclite-dev package still ships a symlink /usr/lib/libpcsclite.so -> /lib/libpcsclite.so.1.0.0, and it appears that right now installing the -dev package is a good workaround for both Debian and Ubuntu users. >> You don't say it clearly, but if I'm understanding you correctly you're >> essentially also suggesting that wpa_supplicant shouldn't be in /sbin at >> all. > > No, I am not suggesting to move wpa_supplicant. Given that wpa_supplicant is already in /sbin (and has been for some time), I can't square this with what you said above: > My proposal is to have wpa_supplicant in /usr and avoid moving > libpcsclite.so.1 around. > Have you looked at the patch I propose? Yes, and I believe I have explained why I honestly don't think it's needed. Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
