On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 05:15:48PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | In Ubuntu, I noticed that pscan-tfbs was failing to build due to unresolved > | symbols in libgsl.so. I don't know if the specific build failure is > | reproducible in Debian, but I can confirm that libgsl.so.23 is also > | underlinked in Debian resulting in unresolved symbols, which is not supposed > | to be the case for shared libraries:
> Any reason why? This particular scheme (of not assigning a major the > auxiliary library libgslcblas) has been in place for a decade+. Could it be > that my recent attempts of getting majors into package (where I was sloppy) > caused this? I haven't looked closely enough at the issue to root cause it, but I do see that the problem is present even in libgsl.so.19 from gsl 2.1+dfsg-2. It's possible that before now every reverse-dependency of gsl happened to pass -lgsl -lgslcblas options in the correct order to not trigger a failure at build time (with the Ubuntu toolchain, which is more strict than Debian's). pscan-tfbs is a new package and passes -lgslcblas -lgsl which is the wrong order, so that is /also/ a bug, but only one of the two bugs needs to be fixed in order to let pscan-tfbs build. > | Please consider applying the attached patch to the gsl package in Debian. I > | have uploaded it to Ubuntu to fix the build failure of the reverse > | dependency. > | Corresponding changelog entries for these changes: > | * debian/patches/gsl-cblas-linkage.patch: add missing linkage on > | libgslcblas to libgsl.so. > | * specify AUTOMAKE and ACLOCAL to dh_autoreconf, to work around upstream > | hard-coding of automake-1.13. > Sounds good to me. I think I'll build with this evening. > Now it is time to confess that I am an utter noob when it comes to libtool, > so I am not sure I fully grok what your patch does, besides "reintroducing" > these two sibbling libraries to each other. The net effect is that when libgsl.so is being built, it's built with a -lgslcblas linker option. Effectively, you could also drop the manual dependency from libgsl23 to libgslcblas23, since dh_shlibdeps will now generate the correct dependency for you. > Lastly, how strong do you feel about the patch? Should we talk to upstream > about it? I'm happy to advocate for this patch to upstream (with your guidance how to do this), as I believe it's per se correct and worth having there to not need to carry a delta. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
