On 12/02/2026 18:00, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
Hello Paul, Adrian:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 12:54 PM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 12:40:11PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
...
On 2/7/26 23:09, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
Thanks Emilio. Packages uploaded to the unstable.
There seems to be regressions on riscv64 in several autopkgtest. Can you
have a look:
/usr/bin/riscv64-linux-gnu-ld.bfd: cannot find -lurdfdom_model_state: No
such file or directory
This isn't riscv64 specific, see for example
https://ci.debian.net/packages/r/ros-kdl-parser/testing/amd64/68547339/
This is a variant of the usual issue that different so-versions of a
library should ideally conflict with each other, since mixing them
in a binary is in many cases not safe.
Thanks Adrian for providing context. Should I go ahead and declare a
conflict in
liburdfdom5 agains the liburdfdom4? Or do we prefer it to hable in a
different way?
I have added a hint to britney to ignore that issue. I'm not sure why having
multiple libs loaded into an executable would add a linker -l flag, when that
should (ideally) be controlled by pkg-config files.
Emilio
