Your message dated Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:47:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#330831: fixed in directfb 0.9.22-8
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Sep 2005 23:06:45 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 29 16:06:44 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp-out3.tiscali.nl [195.241.79.178]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EL7UC-0002IB-00; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:06:44 -0700
Received: from [195.240.184.66] (helo=strider.fjphome.nl)
by smtp-out3.tiscali.nl with esmtp (Tiscali http://www.tiscali.nl)
id 1EL7UA-00026l-QS
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:06:43 +0200
From: Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Several libs do not declare libfusion.so as NEEDED.
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:06:34 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="nextPart2349550.gaZaTu5ulJ";
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
--nextPart2349550.gaZaTu5ulJ
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Package: libdirectfb-0.9-22-udeb
Severity: important
Version: 0.9.22-7
Tags: d-i
This missing declaration makes mklibs fail with the following error:
No library provides non-weak fusion_shcalloc
This in turn makes builds for the graphical version of Debian Installer fail.
At least the following libraries use symbols from libfusion.so (checked
for symbol "fusion_shcalloc"):
libdirectfb_cle266.so
libdirectfb_fbdev.so
libdirectfb_unichrome.so
libdirectfbwm_default.so
For example, libdirectfb_cle266.so.
$ readelf -s -W .../usr/lib/directfb-0.9.22/gfxdrivers/libdirectfb_cle266.so
Symbol table '.dynsym' contains 98 entries:
Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name
0: 00000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND
[...]
19: 00000000 37 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND fusion_shcalloc
[...]
The symbol fusion_shcalloc is provided by libfusion.so.
$ nm -D .../usr/lib/libfusion.so
[...]
00001ca0 T fusion_shcalloc
00001d00 T fusion_shfree
00001c70 T fusion_shmalloc
[...]
But objdump does not show libfusion as NEEDED.
$ objdump --private-headers
./tmp/gtk-miniiso/tree/usr/lib/directfb-0.9.22/gfxdrivers/libdirectfb_cle266.so
.../usr/lib/directfb-0.9.22/gfxdrivers/libdirectfb_cle266.so: file format
elf32-i386
Program Header:
LOAD off 0x00000000 vaddr 0x00000000 paddr 0x00000000 align 2**12
filesz 0x00008488 memsz 0x00008488 flags r-x
LOAD off 0x00008488 vaddr 0x00009488 paddr 0x00009488 align 2**12
filesz 0x00000340 memsz 0x000003e0 flags rw-
DYNAMIC off 0x000084a0 vaddr 0x000094a0 paddr 0x000094a0 align 2**2
filesz 0x000000e8 memsz 0x000000e8 flags rw-
STACK off 0x00000000 vaddr 0x00000000 paddr 0x00000000 align 2**2
filesz 0x00000000 memsz 0x00000000 flags rw-
Dynamic Section:
NEEDED libz.so.1
NEEDED libdirectfb-0.9.so.22
NEEDED libdl.so.2
NEEDED libpthread.so.0
NEEDED libc.so.6
SONAME libdirectfb_cle266.so
[...]
--nextPart2349550.gaZaTu5ulJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDPHOEgm/Kwh6ICoQRAgwkAJ98/Y10H1WoirDkpRrfxQxl9xmuFQCg2jZr
+Y+6szhz25S8sLDkRCm6miU=
=81TQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart2349550.gaZaTu5ulJ--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 330831-close) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Oct 2005 20:48:07 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 06 13:48:07 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ENcdv-0001hj-00; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:47:07 -0700
From: Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#330831: fixed in directfb 0.9.22-8
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:47:07 -0700
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Source: directfb
Source-Version: 0.9.22-8
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
directfb, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
directfb_0.9.22-8.diff.gz
to pool/main/d/directfb/directfb_0.9.22-8.diff.gz
directfb_0.9.22-8.dsc
to pool/main/d/directfb/directfb_0.9.22-8.dsc
libdirectfb-0.9-22-udeb_0.9.22-8_i386.udeb
to pool/main/d/directfb/libdirectfb-0.9-22-udeb_0.9.22-8_i386.udeb
libdirectfb-0.9-22_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/directfb/libdirectfb-0.9-22_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
libdirectfb-bin_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/directfb/libdirectfb-bin_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
libdirectfb-dev_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/directfb/libdirectfb-dev_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
libdirectfb-extra_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/directfb/libdirectfb-extra_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated directfb package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:05:12 +0300
Source: directfb
Binary: libdirectfb-dev libdirectfb-extra libdirectfb-bin
libdirectfb-0.9-22-udeb libdirectfb-0.9-22
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.9.22-8
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
libdirectfb-0.9-22 - frame buffer graphics library
libdirectfb-0.9-22-udeb - frame buffer graphics library (udeb)
libdirectfb-bin - binaries for libdirectfb
libdirectfb-dev - frame buffer graphics library, development files
libdirectfb-extra - extra image/video providers for libdirectfb
Closes: 330831 331441
Changes:
directfb (0.9.22-8) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Add missing direct link dependencies to libdirect.so and libfusion.so
for plugins. (Closes: #330831)
- debian/patches/00_plugins_link.patch: Update.
* Move the regular libdirectfb package Depends in the udeb to a Provides.
(Closes: #331441)
Files:
ffddd55e7093fc26953bfc18d9937b41 876 libs optional directfb_0.9.22-8.dsc
134d31ca8c2d6ba245a98447b068b1bc 46202 libs optional directfb_0.9.22-8.diff.gz
4779c6e7af9750555147d584bde6a1d0 952894 libs optional
libdirectfb-0.9-22_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
1de4dd34f0573c2e23c7f1d92b530c7e 355182 debian-installer optional
libdirectfb-0.9-22-udeb_0.9.22-8_i386.udeb
1e075a57a907f22f7ba856fe41787e52 29206 libs optional
libdirectfb-bin_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
4958bb00861c8023cd701643aeeab6a9 27116 libs optional
libdirectfb-extra_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
3228bfbb175fadc7d7ba6eef920a4cef 327110 libdevel optional
libdirectfb-dev_0.9.22-8_i386.deb
package-type: udeb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDRYkOuW9ciZ2SjJsRAolRAJ9CKOnFnX2CiAVG8gj5fo662Kx1ywCeNB4R
3itz0KQ/lKW4VPOanY/H/lE=
=OeH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
