On 7 May 2026 at 18:23, Benjamin Drung wrote: | On Thu, 2026-05-07 at 11:20 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > On 7 May 2026 at 10:04, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > > | > > On 7 May 2026 at 15:27, Benjamin Drung wrote: | > > > On Thu, 2026-05-07 at 08:18 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > > > > Benjamin, | > > > > | > > > > Damn. I dropped the ball here, and we ended up hot-fixing just the sed | > > > > split-char issue. I just reached out again to upstream to address the actual | > > > > issue of 'leaking' --package-metadata. | > > > | > > > Fixing leaking the --package-metadata can be done by setting the LDFLAGS | > > > for the pkgconfig file. | > > > https://salsa.debian.org/edd/r-base/-/merge_requests/4 will be enough | > > > for that. | > > | > > In the narrow sense, sure. In the larger sense other distro builds needs a | > > fix too so I am again talking to upstream about splitting the LIBS variable. | > | > Heard from upstream, they did take the patch from you that I forwarded; the | > issue really seems to be that I did not set LIBR_LDFLAGS to 'nothing' in | > debian/rules. | > | > Do we care about other distro / other uses figuring out to set LIBR_LDFLAGS | > that way? So far it really only seems to matter for 26.04 (and we will get a | > new binary to CRAN 'shortly'). | | It would be useful to spread the information to the other distributions. | Probably most of them want to set LIBR_LDFLAGS to 'nothing'.
Do you think this is more something for upstream and the whole autoconf setup: prepopulate it with nothing? I am a little fuzzy here on where Ubuntu interjects i.e. what makes this set now by default. I guess at this point this is 'an Ubuntu special': setting --package-metadata and have it flow through LDFLAGS? Can upstream help? Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com Support my Tour de Shore 2026 ride benefiting Maywood Fine Arts! More info at https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/blog/2026/04/03#sponsor_tour_de_shore_2026
