Bug#304976: build-dep is not bogus, but binary depends is missing
reopen 304976
thanks
Hello Henrique,
hello Steve!
The build dependency is fine. It's the binary depends that is
missing.
The NMU still links against libsasl:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ dpkg-deb -x xfmail_1.5.5-2.1_i386.deb
nmu-binary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/
bin/ lib/ share/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/bin/xfmail |grep sasl
libsasl2.so.2 = /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2 (0xb7911000)
Two questions:
1) Is libsasl2-dev and libsasl2 going to be removed, too?
2) Any idea why ${shlibs:Depends} does not include libsaslX?
Regards
Florian
--
Florian Hinzmann private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key / ID: 1024D/B4071A65
Fingerprint : F9AB 00C1 3E3A 8125 DD3F DF1C DF79 A374 B407 1A65
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#304976: build-dep is not bogus, but binary depends is missing
tags 304976 fixed
thanks
Hi Florian,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:40:50AM +0200, Florian Hinzmann wrote:
The build dependency is fine. It's the binary depends that is
missing.
The NMU still links against libsasl:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ dpkg-deb -x xfmail_1.5.5-2.1_i386.deb
nmu-binary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/
bin/ lib/ share/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/bin/xfmail |grep
sasl
libsasl2.so.2 = /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2 (0xb7911000)
Two questions:
1) Is libsasl2-dev and libsasl2 going to be removed, too?
No. These are the current versions -- libsasl7 is being removed because
it's ancient, unmaintained, and RC-buggy.
2) Any idea why ${shlibs:Depends} does not include libsaslX?
Because the above check is wrong: the xfmail binary is *not* linked against
libsasl.
$ objdump -p /tmp/xfmail/usr/bin/xfmail | grep NEEDED
NEEDED libmail.so.0
NEEDED libeditor.so.0
NEEDED libface.so.0
NEEDED libgdbm_compat.so.3
NEEDED libgdbm.so.3
NEEDED libnsl.so.1
NEEDED libmcrypt.so.4
NEEDED libltdl.so.3
NEEDED libdl.so.2
NEEDED libforms.so.1
NEEDED libXpm.so.4
NEEDED libSM.so.6
NEEDED libICE.so.6
NEEDED libX11.so.6
NEEDED libesd.so.0
NEEDED libaudiofile.so.0
NEEDED libldap.so.2
NEEDED liblber.so.2
NEEDED libresolv.so.2
NEEDED libglib-1.2.so.0
NEEDED libstdc++.so.5
NEEDED libm.so.6
NEEDED libgcc_s.so.1
NEEDED libc.so.6
$
One or more of *these* libraries links against libsasl (apparently libldap),
and this is the only reason sasl shows up in the output of ldd. So there is
no missing dependency.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#304976: build-dep is not bogus, but binary depends is missing
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
2) Any idea why ${shlibs:Depends} does not include libsaslX?
Because the above check is wrong: the xfmail binary is *not* linked against
libsasl.
Oh.
$ objdump -p /tmp/xfmail/usr/bin/xfmail | grep NEEDED
NEEDED libmail.so.0
NEEDED libeditor.so.0
NEEDED libface.so.0
NEEDED libgdbm_compat.so.3
NEEDED libgdbm.so.3
NEEDED libnsl.so.1
NEEDED libmcrypt.so.4
NEEDED libltdl.so.3
NEEDED libdl.so.2
NEEDED libforms.so.1
NEEDED libXpm.so.4
NEEDED libSM.so.6
NEEDED libICE.so.6
NEEDED libX11.so.6
NEEDED libesd.so.0
NEEDED libaudiofile.so.0
NEEDED libldap.so.2
NEEDED liblber.so.2
NEEDED libresolv.so.2
NEEDED libglib-1.2.so.0
NEEDED libstdc++.so.5
NEEDED libm.so.6
NEEDED libgcc_s.so.1
NEEDED libc.so.6
$
One or more of *these* libraries links against libsasl (apparently libldap),
Yeah, libldap does link against libsasl2.
and this is the only reason sasl shows up in the output of ldd. So there is
no missing dependency.
That's a relief, it means xfmail in the NMU should be working fine...
--
One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#304976: build-dep is not bogus, but binary depends is missing
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Florian Hinzmann wrote:
The build dependency is fine. It's the binary depends that is
missing.
Ouch! I didn't think of that one. I *did* remove all traces of libsasl7 and
friends from my system, so I knew the build would not be able to complete if
xfmail really needed old SASL...
The NMU still links against libsasl:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ dpkg-deb -x xfmail_1.5.5-2.1_i386.deb
nmu-binary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/
bin/ lib/ share/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/bin/xfmail |grep
sasl
libsasl2.so.2 = /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2 (0xb7911000)
Oops, that's the new SASL. That means I have to at least do a new NMU
adding a build-dependency on libsasl2-dev... SASL usually changes APIs when
the ABI changes, so it doesn't make much sense to build-depend on
libsasl-dev usually.
Two questions:
1) Is libsasl2-dev and libsasl2 going to be removed, too?
If they are, which is not probable in the near future, that will be because
libsasl3 hit the archive...
And by that time, I am sure xfmail will have a depends on libsasl2 that
will not let anyone forget to notify you about it before trying to remove
the package ;-)
2) Any idea why ${shlibs:Depends} does not include libsaslX?
No, probably some LD_LIBRARY_PATH or other issue that broke the shlibdeps
scanning. I will look the package over and tell you what I find.
Do you prefer I mail you patches, or that I clean up the mess with another
NMU?
--
One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#304976: build-dep is not bogus, but binary depends is missing
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:19:47 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a relief, it means xfmail in the NMU should be working fine... Yes, it does work fine. I've installed and testet it. Thanks. Florian -- Florian Hinzmann private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key / ID: 1024D/B4071A65 Fingerprint : F9AB 00C1 3E3A 8125 DD3F DF1C DF79 A374 B407 1A65 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
