Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Graham Inggs]

On 18 July 2016 at 18:53, Nico Schlömer  wrote:
> @Graham, would you like to upload?

Sure, will do tomorrow.

-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Nico Schlömer]

I've tested and pushed a build without binutils.

@Graham, would you like to upload?

Cheers,
Nico

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 1:26 PM Felix Salfelder  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:18:30AM +, Nico Schlömer wrote:
> > [binutils] just turn it off
> >
> > @Felix Agreed?
>
> sure, makes sense! let's postpone the static link bfd thing.
>
> thank you
> felix
>
-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Felix Salfelder]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:18:30AM +, Nico Schlömer wrote:
> [binutils] just turn it off
>
> @Felix Agreed?

sure, makes sense! let's postpone the static link bfd thing.

thank you
felix

-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Nico Schlömer]

The binutils support in trilinos is far from being critical, so I'd say for
making things a little easier we just turn it off.

@Felix Agreed?

Cheers,
Nico

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:15 AM Helmut Grohne  wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> > if that's correct, we shouldn't link libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so to a
> > particular revision of libbfd-2.26-system.so. how would that be
> > possible?
> >
> > otoh, if libbfd-2.26.1-system.so
> > - is meant to replace libbfd-2.26-system.so, shouldn't there be a
> >   symlink?
> > - is NOT meant to provide libbfd-2.26-system.so, then why are these not
> >   coinstallable?
>
> Dynamically linking libbfd-*-system.so is no allowed. This is explicitly
> stated in the package description of binutils-dev.
>
> If you absolutely must link libbfd, link it statically and add an
> appropriate Built-Using header.
>
> Helmut
>
>
-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Helmut Grohne]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> if that's correct, we shouldn't link libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so to a
> particular revision of libbfd-2.26-system.so. how would that be
> possible?
> 
> otoh, if libbfd-2.26.1-system.so
> - is meant to replace libbfd-2.26-system.so, shouldn't there be a
>   symlink?
> - is NOT meant to provide libbfd-2.26-system.so, then why are these not
>   coinstallable?

Dynamically linking libbfd-*-system.so is no allowed. This is explicitly
stated in the package description of binutils-dev.

If you absolutely must link libbfd, link it statically and add an
appropriate Built-Using header.

Helmut

-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Massimiliano Leoni]

I see your point, so what do I 
do? Should I file a bug report 
against binutils?
-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Felix Salfelder]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:07:11PM +0200, Massimiliano Leoni wrote:
> The latest update of binutils to version 2.26.1-1 makes it imopssible to
> compile against trilinos. The linker complains
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: warning: libbfd-2.26-system.so, needed by
> 
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so,
> not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)

interesting. the trilinos-teuchos12 package depends on
binutils (>= 2.26), binutils (<< 2.27)

if that's correct, we shouldn't link libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so to a
particular revision of libbfd-2.26-system.so. how would that be
possible?

otoh, if libbfd-2.26.1-system.so
- is meant to replace libbfd-2.26-system.so, shouldn't there be a
  symlink?
- is NOT meant to provide libbfd-2.26-system.so, then why are these not
  coinstallable?

I'm not trying to argue that this is a bug in binutils, i just don't
understand. my idea would be to change the binutils dependency to
(=2.26), but that feels a bit silly (isn't that dependency automatic?).

cheers
felix

-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#830681: trilinos-all-dev: Updating binutils breaks trilinos

[Massimiliano Leoni]

Package: trilinos-all-dev
Version: 12.6.3-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

Dear Maintainer,

The latest update of binutils to version 2.26.1-1 makes it imopssible to
compile against trilinos. The linker complains

/usr/bin/ld: warning: libbfd-2.26-system.so, needed by

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so:
undefined reference to "bfd_openr"

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so:
riferimento non definito a "bfd_map_over_sections"

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so:
riferimento non definito a "bfd_close"  
  

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so:
riferimento non definito a "bfd_check_format"   
  

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so:
riferimento non definito a "bfd_check_format_matches"   
  

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so:
riferimento non definito a "bfd_init"   
  
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

The new target library is

$apt-file search libbfd-2.26
binutils: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbfd-2.26.1-system.so

A similar problem was solved for PETSc package recently, see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=828987




-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages trilinos-all-dev depends on:
ii  libtrilinos-amesos-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-amesos2-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-anasazi-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-aztecoo-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-belos-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-epetra-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-epetraext-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-galeri-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-globipack-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-ifpack-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-ifpack2-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-intrepid-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-isorropia-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-kokkos-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-komplex-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-ml-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-moertel-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-muelu-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-nox-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-optipack-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-pamgen-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-phalanx-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-pike-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-piro-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-pliris-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-rol-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-rtop-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-rythmos-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-sacado-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-shards-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-shylu-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-stokhos-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-stratimikos-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-teko-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-teuchos-dev12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-thyra-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-tpetra-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-trilinoscouplings-dev  12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-triutils-dev   12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-xpetra-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-zoltan-dev 12.6.3-1
ii  libtrilinos-zoltan2-dev12.6.3-1

trilinos-all-dev recommends no packages.

Versions of packages trilinos-all-dev suggests:
pn  trilinos-doc  

-- no debconf information

-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers