Hmm, that's really strange. The linker detects that the library is not required but still keeps it. It doesn't happen for every library. I added -lssl on the command line and the libssl library was properly removed from the dependencies.
The debug messages from ld are: debug: file=libnsl.so.1 unused: does not satisfy any references; retained: compensating for insufficient dependencies debug: file=libintl.so.8 unused: does not satisfy any references; retained: compensating for insufficient dependencies debug: file=libssl.so.1.0.0 unused: does not satisfy any references; discarded I am still looking for the reason. Yann 2013/11/4 Rafael Ostertag <[email protected]> > Hi Yann > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:10:30PM +0100, Yann Rouillard wrote: > > Hi Rafi and slowfranklin, > > > > Tell me how to reproduce the problem and I will have a look (for > > slowfranklin, I suppose I just have to recompile tracker). > > I am surprised that a patch could have such a bad side effect as screwing > > the "-z ignore option" and I would prefer to dig first into the problem. > > You can take `gamin'. Remove both CHKPKG_OVERRIDES for CSWgamin and build a > package on sparc and x86. That should do the trick. Let me know if I can > be of > assistance. > > cheers > rafi > > > > > Yann > > > > > > 2013/11/4 Rafael Ostertag <[email protected]> > > > > > Hi Dago > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:09PM +0100, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > > > > Hi Rafi, > > > > > > > > > Could it be related to the buildfarm update? > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably, the T5220 is now running 105400-04 whereas unstable10x is > > > still running 147441-19. > > > > Should I update the x86 machines also? My impression is to patch as > less > > > as possible to > > > > not introduce new linker symbol anomalies. The patch on the farm was > > > needed to fix an ugly > > > > bug in zfs which prevented us from doing backups, so no option of not > > > installing ;-) > > > > > > If it is related to Solaris patches, patching x86 would mean that `-z > > > ignore' > > > might not work on x86 anymore, as well. So, wouldn't it be smarter, to > > > figure > > > out why it stopped working on sparc? I mean, -z ignore ain't such an > > > esotheric > > > switch and has been put in place for good reasons, hasn't it? > > > > > > cheers > > > rafi > > > >
