Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-19 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2024-04-19 at 00:01 +0100, Peter Green wrote: > Thanks, upstream has now accepted a patch that takes a slightly different > approach to fixing the issue. > > https://github.com/canonical/lightdm/issues/352 Yes I saw. That's why I think

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-18 Thread Peter Green
On 14/04/2024 20:21, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: On Sat, 2024-04-13 at 16:11 +0100, Peter Green wrote: >> Hi, thanks for the patch. It looks a bit strong though, undefining stuff >> like >> that unconditionally. Do you have pointers to the Ubuntu bug or something? >> I've looked at upstream commits

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-14 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, 2024-04-13 at 16:11 +0100, Peter Green wrote: > > Hi, thanks for the patch. It looks a bit strong though, undefining stuff > > like > > that unconditionally. Do you have pointers to the Ubuntu bug or something? > > I've looked at upstream

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-13 Thread Peter Green
Hi, thanks for the patch. It looks a bit strong though, undefining stuff like that unconditionally. Do you have pointers to the Ubuntu bug or something? I've looked at upstream commits and issues and couldn't see anything there. My understanding of the issue. In glibc _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-05 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 11:25 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > > Hi, thanks for the patch. It looks a bit strong though, undefining stuff > > like > > that unconditionally. Do you have pointers to the Ubuntu bug or something? > I haven't checked

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-05 Thread Andrey Rakhmatullin
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:09:21AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > I assume the following patch from Ubuntu fixes this: > > > > --- a/tests/src/libsystem.c > > +++ b/tests/src/libsystem.c > > @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@ > >  #define _GNU_SOURCE > >  #define __USE_GNU > > > > +#undef _FILE_OFFSET_BITS >

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-04-05 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2024-04-01 at 00:37 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > I assume the following patch from Ubuntu fixes this: > > --- a/tests/src/libsystem.c > +++ b/tests/src/libsystem.c > @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@ >  #define _GNU_SOURCE >  #define __USE_GNU > >

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-03-31 Thread Andrey Rakhmatullin
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 09:56:58PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > /bin/bash ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wnested-externs > -Werror=missing-prototypes -Werror=implicit-function- > declaration

Bug#1067561: FTBFS: Error: symbol `open64' is already defined

2024-03-23 Thread Andrey Rakhmatullin
Source: lightdm Version: 1.32.0-4 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=lightdm=armel=1.32.0-4%2Bb3=1711185127=0 /bin/bash ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wnested-externs -Werror=missing-prototypes