Your message dated Thu, 12 May 2022 18:41:22 +0300
with message-id <yn0qonaqijaum...@mitya57.me>
and subject line Re: Bug#1010728: Please provide libatomic-dev package with
unversioned libatomic.so
has caused the Debian Bug report #1010728,
regarding Please provide libatomic-dev package with unversioned libatomic.so
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1010728: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libatomic1
Version: 12-20220428-1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
Currently we have libatomic.so.1 but no unversioned libatomic.so.
The next version of Qt (6.3.1) will have this CMake code to find atomic
library when there std::atomic does not work out of the box:
find_library(atomic_LIB atomic REQUIRED)
This searches for unversioned libatomic.so. I proposed a patch for Qt to
support libatomic.so.1, but upstream Qt Core maintainer responded with the
following:
> That's just a packaging mistake in your Linux distribution. libatomic.so
> exists on OpenSUSE:
>
> $ rpm -ql gcc12 | grep libatomic
> /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/12/libatomic.a
> /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/12/libatomic.so
> $ rpm -ql gcc11 | grep libatomic
> /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/11/libatomic.a
> /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/11/libatomic.so
>
> I also see it in the listing for gcc in Fedora
> (https://fedora.pkgs.org/35/fedora-updates-x86_64/gcc-11.3.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm.html),
> CentOS Stream 9
> (https://centos.pkgs.org/9-stream/centos-appstream-aarch64/gcc-11.3.1-2.el9.aarch64.rpm.html),
> Alpine Linux
> (https://alpine.pkgs.org/3.15/alpine-main-aarch64/gcc-10.3.1_git20211027-r0.apk.html),
> Slackware
> (https://slackware.pkgs.org/current/slackware-x86_64/gcc-11.3.0-x86_64-1.txz.html),
> even FreeBSD Ports
> (https://freebsd.pkgs.org/13/freebsd-amd64/gcc11-11.3.0.pkg.html).
> Plus as a separate package for Mageia and OpenMandriva
> (https://pkgs.org/download/libatomic-devel).
>
> So if it's missing in your distro, report it as a bug there.
>
> Hardcoding the soversion is not a good idea because it could change.
See our discussion here:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/410167
So can we please have libatomic.so like all these distros?
--
Dmitry Shachnev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 05:17:41PM +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Currently we have libatomic.so.1 but no unversioned libatomic.so.
>
> The next version of Qt (6.3.1) will have this CMake code to find atomic
> library when there std::atomic does not work out of the box:
>
> find_library(atomic_LIB atomic REQUIRED)
Nevermind, I found the solution that Qt upstream maintainers are happy with:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/410167
--
Dmitry Shachnev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
