Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
On onsdagen den 9 november 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: thanks for the update... not sure if I will be able to dig into it within upcoming week (traveling), so if you get a chance -- would be appreciated! No need, it built on the second try. On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On onsdagen den 9 november 2011, you stated the following: Thanks Magnus, was about to upload it myself but got distracted -- you were first -- you won ;) Crapfully enough the build failed on armel due to a SIGILL of all things, and I don't know if it's due to randomness, a bug in the new version of binutils, or the static linkage. On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On tisdagen den 8 november 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no time atm for lush One NMU coming up, as follows: -- Magnus Holmgrenholmg...@debian.org Debian Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
Thanks again ;) On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: within upcoming week (traveling), so if you get a chance -- would be appreciated! No need, it built on the second try. -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
On tisdagen den 8 november 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no
time atm for lush
One NMU coming up, as follows:
diff -Nru lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog
--- lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog 2011-02-27 22:13:03.0 +0100
+++ lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog 2011-11-08 22:22:44.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+lush (1.2.1-9+cvs20110227+nmu1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * debian/patches/05-static-libbfd-needs-lz: Make linking statically
+against libbfd work by appending -lz, which libbfd needs (Closes:
+#648014). Thanks to Niels Möller.
+
+ -- Magnus Holmgren holmg...@debian.org Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:18:13 +0100
+
lush (1.2.1-9+cvs20110227) unstable; urgency=low
* Upload to unstable
diff -Nru lush-1.2.1/debian/control lush-1.2.1/debian/control
--- lush-1.2.1/debian/control 2011-02-27 22:13:03.0 +0100
+++ lush-1.2.1/debian/control 2011-11-08 23:14:15.0 +0100
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
Section: devel
Priority: extra
Maintainer: Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com
-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7.0.50~), autotools-dev, binutils-dev, libxt-dev,
libxft-dev, gfortran, indent, pkg-config, libncurses-dev, libreadline-dev,
libgsl0-dev, liblapack-dev,
libgl1-mesa-dev | libgl-dev, libsdl-dev, libcv-dev, libasound2-dev,
libaudiofile-dev
+Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7.0.50~), autotools-dev, binutils-dev, libxt-dev,
libxft-dev, gfortran, indent, pkg-config, libncurses-dev, libreadline-dev,
libgsl0-dev, liblapack-dev,
libgl1-mesa-dev | libgl-dev, libsdl-dev, libcv-dev, libasound2-dev,
libaudiofile-dev, zlib1g-dev
Standards-Version: 3.9.1
Homepage: http://lush.sourceforge.net/
Vcs-Browser: http://git.onerussian.com/?p=deb/lush.git
diff -Nru lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/05-static-libbfd-needs-lz
lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/05-static-libbfd-needs-lz
--- lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/05-static-libbfd-needs-lz 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/05-static-libbfd-needs-lz 2011-11-08
22:14:30.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+From: Niels Möller ni...@lysator.liu.se
+Subject: When linking statically against libbfd we need to link against libz
as well.
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/648014
+
+--- a/configure
b/configure
+@@ -5895,7 +5895,7 @@ else
+ fi
+
+ i_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-liberty/ -lintl/'`
+-sn_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic
-Wl,-Bdynamic/'`
++sn_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic
-Wl,-Bdynamic -lz/'`
+ si_LIBS=`echo $i_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic
-Wl,-Bdynamic/'`
+ LIBS=$sn_LIBS
+ { echo $as_me:$LINENO: checking whether bfd works with -Bstatic 5
+--- a/configure.ac
b/configure.ac
+@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ if test x$has_bfd = xyes ; then
+ has_intl=
+ AC_CHECK_LIB(intl, dcgettext, [has_intl=yes],[has_intl=no])
+ i_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-liberty/ -lintl/'`
+-sn_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic
-Wl,-Bdynamic/'`
++sn_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic
-Wl,-Bdynamic -lz/'`
+ si_LIBS=`echo $i_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic
-Wl,-Bdynamic/'`
+ LIBS=$sn_LIBS
+ AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether bfd works with -Bstatic])
diff -Nru lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/series lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/series
--- lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/series2011-02-27 22:13:03.0 +0100
+++ lush-1.2.1/debian/patches/series2011-11-08 22:17:44.0 +0100
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@
02-manpage
03-gcc4-mips
04-ld-no-add-needed
+05-static-libbfd-needs-lz
--
Magnus Holmgrenholmg...@debian.org
Debian Developer
diff -Nru lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog
--- lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog 2011-02-27 22:13:03.0 +0100
+++ lush-1.2.1/debian/changelog 2011-11-08 22:22:44.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+lush (1.2.1-9+cvs20110227+nmu1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * debian/patches/05-static-libbfd-needs-lz: Make linking statically
+against libbfd work by appending -lz, which libbfd needs (Closes:
+#648014). Thanks to Niels Möller.
+
+ -- Magnus Holmgren holmg...@debian.org Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:18:13 +0100
+
lush (1.2.1-9+cvs20110227) unstable; urgency=low
* Upload to unstable
diff -Nru lush-1.2.1/debian/control lush-1.2.1/debian/control
--- lush-1.2.1/debian/control 2011-02-27 22:13:03.0 +0100
+++ lush-1.2.1/debian/control 2011-11-08 23:14:15.0 +0100
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
Section: devel
Priority: extra
Maintainer: Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com
-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7.0.50~), autotools-dev, binutils-dev, libxt-dev, libxft-dev, gfortran, indent, pkg-config, libncurses-dev, libreadline-dev, libgsl0-dev, liblapack-dev, libgl1-mesa-dev | libgl-dev, libsdl-dev, libcv-dev, libasound2-dev, libaudiofile-dev
+Build-Depends: debhelper
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
Thanks Magnus, was about to upload it myself but got distracted -- you were first -- you won ;) On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On tisdagen den 8 november 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no time atm for lush One NMU coming up, as follows: -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
On onsdagen den 9 november 2011, you stated the following: Thanks Magnus, was about to upload it myself but got distracted -- you were first -- you won ;) Crapfully enough the build failed on armel due to a SIGILL of all things, and I don't know if it's due to randomness, a bug in the new version of binutils, or the static linkage. On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On tisdagen den 8 november 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no time atm for lush One NMU coming up, as follows: -- Magnus Holmgrenholmg...@debian.org Debian Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
thanks for the update... not sure if I will be able to dig into it within upcoming week (traveling), so if you get a chance -- would be appreciated! On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On onsdagen den 9 november 2011, you stated the following: Thanks Magnus, was about to upload it myself but got distracted -- you were first -- you won ;) Crapfully enough the build failed on armel due to a SIGILL of all things, and I don't know if it's due to randomness, a bug in the new version of binutils, or the static linkage. On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Magnus Holmgren wrote: On tisdagen den 8 november 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no time atm for lush One NMU coming up, as follows: -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
Package: lush Version: 1.2.1-9+cvs20110227 The lush package seems to depend on a very particular version of binutils, # info: lush depends on binutils 2.21.90.20111005 (ok, testing has version 2.21.90.20111004-2) # info: lush depends on binutils = 2.21.90.20111004 (ok, testing has version 2.21.90.20111004-2) hence blocking migration of newer binutils to testing (Updating binutils makes 2 non-depending packages uninstallable on i386: lush, nitpic, see http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=binutils), and also blocking anything which depends on newer binutils, e.g., version 3.0.0-6 of the linux-2.6 package. I had a look at lush's debian/control file, and I suspect the dependencies are put in automagically because lush links dynamically (rather than statically) to one or both of libbfd and libopcodes. Which is a bad thing to do, as explained in the thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg01085.html. There's one other package which appears to have a similar problem: nitpic. If you think this bug report makes sense, I can file an identical one on that package. Regards, /Niels Möller -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no time atm for lush On Tue, 08 Nov 2011, Niels Möller wrote: Package: lush Version: 1.2.1-9+cvs20110227 The lush package seems to depend on a very particular version of binutils, -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com writes: if you are a DD -- just proceed with NMU fixing this issue... I have no time atm for lush I'm not a DD. But I checked out your git tree, installed the build dependencies, and had a look. I'm not at all familiar with building debian packages, but I tried running dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc -us, and it seemd to work. I'm having a debian stable x86_64 machine. It seems configure already tries to setup static linking with bfd, but fails, because bfd also depends on zlib. The below patch to configure.ac seems to solve the problem (ldd src/lush shows no dependence on libbfd, and binutils is no longer mentioned in debian/lush.substvars). Maybe it would be better to test if -lz is needed or not, similarly to -lintl. I haven't tested the resulting executable; I have never used lush, and there seemed to be no make check target. Regards, /Niels diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index 35ef84b..bfb2611 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ if test x$has_bfd = xyes ; then has_intl= AC_CHECK_LIB(intl, dcgettext, [has_intl=yes],[has_intl=no]) i_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-liberty/ -lintl/'` -sn_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic -Wl,-Bdynamic/'` +sn_LIBS=`echo $n_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic -Wl,-Bdynamic -lz/'` si_LIBS=`echo $i_LIBS | sed -e 's/-lbfd\( -liberty\)*/-Wl,-Bstatic -Wl,-Bdynamic/'` LIBS=$sn_LIBS AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether bfd works with -Bstatic]) -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011, Niels Möller wrote: I haven't tested the resulting executable; I have never used lush, and there seemed to be no make check target. you could try demos from /usr/share/lush/demos/ -- =--= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#648014: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com writes: you could try demos from /usr/share/lush/demos/ Ok, I have now tried a few of them (calculator, life, lunar-lander), and they seems to work fine. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
