Your message dated Sat, 2 Mar 2019 16:56:23 +0100
with message-id <20190302155623.ga21...@gaara.hadrons.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#917403: dpkg-dev: Improve an error message
has caused the Debian Bug report #917403,
regarding dpkg-dev: Improve an error message
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
917403: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917403
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.19.2
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
Working on a package, it would have made my life easier if
dpkg-shlibdeps told me that it was caused by a rpath on the
binary.
The attached patch improves the error message.
Cheers,
Sylvestre
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (600, 'unstable'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'stable'),
(300, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
LANGUAGE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii binutils 2.31.1-11
ii bzip2 1.0.6-9
ii libdpkg-perl 1.19.2
ii make 4.2.1-1.2
ii patch 2.7.6-3
ii perl 5.28.1-3
ii tar 1.30+dfsg-3
ii xz-utils 5.2.2-1.3
Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends:
ii build-essential 12.5
ii clang-5.0 [c-compil 1:5.0.2-2
ii clang-6.0 [c-compil 1:6.0.1-9.2
ii clang-7 [c-compiler 1:7.0.1-2
ii clang-8 [c-compiler 1:8~svn349260-1~exp1+0~20181215101453.2200~1.gbp22d924
ii fakeroot 1.23-1
ii gcc 4:8.2.0-2
ii gcc-6 [c-compiler] 6.5.0-2
ii gcc-7 [c-compiler] 7.4.0-1
ii gcc-8 [c-compiler] 8.2.0-12
ii gnupg 2.2.12-1
ii gnupg2 2.2.12-1
ii gpgv 2.2.12-1
pn libalgorithm-merge- <none>
Versions of packages dpkg-dev suggests:
pn debian-keyring <none>
-- no debconf information
>From 3927dddec563c221b70e96def54c3f62f654e6bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:45:29 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] dpkg-shlibdeps: Improve the error message in case of rpath
---
scripts/dpkg-shlibdeps.pl | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/dpkg-shlibdeps.pl b/scripts/dpkg-shlibdeps.pl
index fa6c37a4d..8a933266d 100755
--- a/scripts/dpkg-shlibdeps.pl
+++ b/scripts/dpkg-shlibdeps.pl
@@ -334,7 +334,8 @@ foreach my $file (keys %exec) {
error(g_('no dependency information found for %s ' .
"(used by %s)\n" .
'Hint: check if the library actually comes ' .
- 'from a package.'), $lib, $file)
+ 'from a package or if a rpath is set on the ' .
+ 'program.'), $lib, $file)
unless $ignore;
}
}
--
2.20.1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi!
On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 10:15:23 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le 29/01/2019 à 10:04, Guillem Jover a écrit :
> > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> >
> > On Thu, 2018-12-27 at 12:45:40 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > > Working on a package, it would have made my life easier if
> > > dpkg-shlibdeps told me that it was caused by a rpath on the
> > > binary.
> > Hmm, that's strange, RPATH should be supported by dpkg-shlibdeps so
> > I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Do you have a reproducer?
>
> Sorry, I should have been more explicit.
>
> I experienced this issue when I was working on moving llvm-toolchain-7
> to a stage2 build (using a freshly build clang (with gcc) to build clang
> itself).
>
> So, pretty hard to reproduce and I wasted a few hours on this issue (I was
> looking
> in the wrong direction because of the current error message).
I'm then just going to close this, as the code is supposed to be
handling RPATH/RUNPATH correctly, so the proposed patch would be the
wrong fix. If you can come up with a reproducer of the situation you
countered, then please either reopen or file a new report, so that we
can diagnose what might actually be the underlying problem.
Thanks,
Guillem
--- End Message ---
