On 24 June 2018 at 08:51, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| On 24 June 2018 at 08:38, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| |
| | But nomatter what I do, I end up with
| |
| | W: libgsl24: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libgsl23
| |
| | ie the library built by upstream is built as libgsl.so.23.1.0 -- even though
| | upstream configure.ac has a long comment header ending in
| |
| | dnl gsl-2.5 libgsl 24:0:1 libgslcblas 0:0:0
| |
| | as well as
| |
| | GSL_CURRENT=24
| | GSL_REVISION=0
| | GSL_AGE=1
| |
| | [...]
| |
| | GSL_LT_VERSION="${GSL_CURRENT}:${GSL_REVISION}:${GSL_AGE}"
| | AC_SUBST(GSL_LT_VERSION)
| |
| | I am stumped. Why does the '24' version not get through?
|
| Looks like upstream builds as libgsl.23.1.0 based on a quick build in Docker:
|
| root@fcae44906b06:/tmp/gsl/gsl-2.5# ls -ltr /usr/local/lib/
| total 35064
| -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1097936 Jun 24 13:45 libgslcblas.so.0.0.0
| lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Jun 24 13:45 libgslcblas.so.0 ->
libgslcblas.so.0.0.0
| lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Jun 24 13:45 libgslcblas.so ->
libgslcblas.so.0.0.0
| -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 949 Jun 24 13:45 libgslcblas.la
| -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1884714 Jun 24 13:45 libgslcblas.a
| -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12038200 Jun 24 13:45 libgsl.so.23.1.0
| lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jun 24 13:45 libgsl.so.23 -> libgsl.so.23.1.0
| lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jun 24 13:45 libgsl.so -> libgsl.so.23.1.0
| -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 918 Jun 24 13:45 libgsl.la
| -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 20858130 Jun 24 13:45 libgsl.a
| drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jun 24 13:45 pkgconfig
| root@fcae44906b06:/tmp/gsl/gsl-2.5#
|
| What should we do here? We can't stay at 23 as that was an issue which lead
| to your original bug report. We probably should not use 24 which may come
| next. Shall we do libgsl23-1 ?
I emailed upstream, but the mail seems lost or stuck as it does not yet
appear in their list archives at https://cygwin.com/ml/gsl-discuss/2018-q2/
Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
