Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geert Stappers) writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:54:31AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geert Stappers) writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:02:44AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > | | | > I cannot find this information there, either.
> > > > | Can I get more information on why this is a bug in mklibs?
> > > > See bug 211092 ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211092 )
> > > >
> > > > | Does some library actually provide timeout_yet?
> > > > | If so, can I please see readelf -s -W output of it?
> > > >
> > > > I don't care about a single accidentically missing symbol.
> > >
> > > I don't understand. Are you saying if a symbol is missing, mklibs
> > > should ignore that and create a binary that cannot be executed?
> >
> > I'm only saying that it is a mklibs bug.
> >
> > Where the timeout_yet or whatever noweak symbol is, is not
> > important(to me).
>
> Then how do you know it is a bug in mklibs and it is not actually a
> missing symbol?
Which was the real reason it failed in every testcase I got my hand on
so far. All of those suposedly mklibs weak symbols bugs disapeared
when recompiling the faulty binaries against the proper versions of
libraries so far.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
