-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for official libc formatting #22
Conversation
Thank you for the PR Dylan. Could checking for "libc" on its own, which feels rather generic, potentially lead to false positives? What does Bionic libc report? What if musl starts using the string "MUSL libc"? Would a check for the explicit string "GNU libc" or similar be more robust? |
Great question! I definitely see how being a tad bit more generic could potentially lead to false positives (although I think, at present, those situations are theoretical rather than actually possible given the current file content of
|
Thanks, if searching for "GNU C Library" improves things then that seems like a good option here.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the updates, I've left one comment inline about the failing musl-based Void test. (The failing glibc-based Void test is now fixed on the main branch so a rebase will get this passing.)
Thank you very much Dylan. |
This change was included in v2.0.3. |
This PR updates the ldd content checks for family and version to account for distributions that are more closely aligned with the official formatting of ldd, which does not contain the string "GLIBC".
This allows faster checks on distros like Amazon Linux, openSUSE, Fedora, RHEL, Arch, and more without falling back to
process.report.getReport()
.