Re: [s6] debian packaging

From: Buck Evan <buck_at_yelp.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:12:26 -0700

Removing the execline patch results in:


   dh_shlibdeps -O--parallel -O--autodest
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol waitpid_nointr used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol PROG used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol stralloc_catb used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol env_get2 used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol env_string used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol byte_chr used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pathexec0_run used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol str_start used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol stralloc_free used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol uint320_scan_base used by
debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in
none of the libraries
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: 18 other similar warnings have been skipped (use
-v to see them all)



The manpage
<http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jaunty/man1/dpkg-shlibdeps.1.html>
says:

       *symbol* *sym* *used* *by* *binary* *found* *in* *none* *of*
*the* *libraries.*
              The indicated symbol has not been found in the libraries linked
              with the binary. The *binary* is most likely a library and it
              needs to be linked with an additional library during the build
              process (option *-l**library* of the linker).



It's true that the execline.so doesn't link to skalibs.so even though
it requires its symbols:


$ ldd /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0
        linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffff2dfe000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff5dcf8c000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff5dd53f000)





On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Laurent Bercot <ska-skaware_at_skarnet.org>
wrote:

>
> (Please follow-up this part of the thread to the skaware mailing-list.)
>
> On 12/08/2015 08:37, Buck Evan wrote:
>
>> -
>>
>> https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/execline/debian/patches/02_link_against_libskarnet.patch
>> -
>>
>> https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/s6/debian/patches/75_dot_so_link_skarlib.patch
>>
>>
>> Again this is because the build derps without them, but I forget the exact
>> failure mode.
>> I'll track down details upon request.
>>
>
> The parts for binaries and static libraries are clearly invalid. If
> something breaks while building those, then there's a problem with the
> way the build is invoked, or the options to configure.
> For static libraries, -lskarnet is nonsense. For binaries, -lskarnet
> is already listed in the requirements ($^) and should be translated
> to a .a or .so by vpath resolution, so it is incorrect to list it
> again. Something is definitely wrong if the package builds with them
> while it won't build without.
>
> I'm still unsure about the shared libraries parts. I don't think
> it should be needed, but my test suite isn't up to par and I need to
> update it to test the problematic cases and understand exactly what
> is happening.
>
> In the meantime, please find the problem with your build and fix it.
> Chances are you won't need the shared libraries patch either once
> you've done that. :)
>
>
> It seems likely to me that you'll want to figure out and fix these two
>> issues given your response to the above patch.
>> Is that right?
>>
>
> Yes, and now you have work to do too. :P
>
> --
> Laurent
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 12 2015 - 17:12:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC