These patches are correct to the best of my knowlege / ability:
- https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/skalibs/debian/patches/01_link_against_librt_if_necessary.patch - https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/execline/debian/patches/02_link_against_libskarnet.patch - https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/s6/debian/patches/75_dot_so_link_skarlib.patch On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Buck Evan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the Right fix is to add -lskarnet to the requirments of > execline.so and s6.so similar to what I've done. > I was likely overzealous when I changed the .a requirements and should > back that bit out. > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Buck Evan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Removing the s6 patch gives essentially the same issue: >> >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol open_write used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol byte_chr used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol openreadnclose used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol uint16_pack_big used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol fd_close used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol fd_write used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol open_create used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol stralloc_catb used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol open_read used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol openwritenclose_suffix_internal used by >> debian/s6/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libs6.so.2.2.0.0 found in none of the >> libraries >> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: 43 other similar warnings have been skipped (use >> -v to see them all) >> >> >> This is the compilation line for libs6.so: >> >> exec gcc -o libs6.so -std=c99 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions >> -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wa,--noexecstack >> -fno-stack-protector -pipe >> -Wall -fPIC -Wl,--hash-style=both -L/usr/lib/skalibs -L/usr/lib/execline >> -L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu -shared -Wl,-soname,libs6.so.2 >> src/libs6/ftrigr1_zero.lo src >> /libs6/ftrigr_check.lo src/libs6/ftrigr_end.lo src/libs6/ftrigr_start.lo >> src/libs6/ftrigr_startf.lo src/libs6/ftrigr_subscribe.lo >> src/libs6/ftrigr_unsubscribe.lo s >> rc/libs6/ftrigr_update.lo src/libs6/ftrigr_wait_and.lo >> src/libs6/ftrigr_wait_or.lo src/libs6/ftrigr_zero.lo >> src/libs6/ftrigw_clean.lo src/libs6/ftrigw_fifodir_make >> .lo src/libs6/ftrigw_notify.lo src/libs6/ftrigw_notifyb.lo >> src/libs6/ftrigw_notifyb_nosig.lo src/libs6/s6_accessrules_backend_cdb.lo >> src/libs6/s6_accessrules_backe >> nd_fs.lo src/libs6/s6_accessrules_keycheck_ip4.lo >> src/libs6/s6_accessrules_keycheck_ip6.lo >> src/libs6/s6_accessrules_keycheck_reversedns.lo src/libs6/s6_accessrules >> _keycheck_uidgid.lo src/libs6/s6_accessrules_params_free.lo >> src/libs6/s6_accessrules_uidgid_cdb.lo >> src/libs6/s6_accessrules_uidgid_fs.lo src/libs6/s6_supervise_loc >> k.lo src/libs6/s6_supervise_lock_mode.lo src/libs6/s6_svc_write.lo >> src/libs6/s6_svc_writectl.lo src/libs6/s6_svstatus_pack.lo >> src/libs6/s6_svstatus_read.lo src/lib >> s6/s6_svstatus_unpack.lo src/libs6/s6_svstatus_write.lo >> src/libs6/s6lock_acquire.lo src/libs6/s6lock_check.lo >> src/libs6/s6lock_end.lo src/libs6/s6lock_release.lo s >> rc/libs6/s6lock_start.lo src/libs6/s6lock_startf.lo >> src/libs6/s6lock_update.lo src/libs6/s6lock_wait_and.lo >> src/libs6/s6lock_wait_or.lo src/libs6/s6lock_zero.lo sr >> c/libs6/s6_fdholder_delete.lo src/libs6/s6_fdholder_delete_async.lo >> src/libs6/s6_fdholder_getdump.lo src/libs6/s6_fdholder_list.lo >> src/libs6/s6_fdholder_list_async >> .lo src/libs6/s6_fdholder_list_cb.lo src/libs6/s6_fdholder_retrieve.lo >> src/libs6/s6_fdholder_retrieve_async.lo >> src/libs6/s6_fdholder_retrieve_cb.lo src/libs6/s6_fd >> holder_setdump.lo src/libs6/s6_fdholder_store.lo >> src/libs6/s6_fdholder_store_async.lo >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Buck Evan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This is the compilation line for libexecline.so >>> >>> exec gcc -o libexecline.so -std=c99 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions >>> -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wa,--noexecstack >>> -fno-stack-protector >>> -pipe -Wall -fPIC -Wl,--hash-style=both -L/usr/lib/skalibs >>> -L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu -shared -Wl,-soname,libexecline.so.2 >>> src/libexecline/el_execsequence.lo sr >>> c/libexecline/el_getstrict.lo src/libexecline/el_parse.lo >>> src/libexecline/el_parse_from_buffer.lo >>> src/libexecline/el_parse_from_string.lo src/libexecline/el_popenv >>> .lo src/libexecline/el_pushenv.lo src/libexecline/el_semicolon.lo >>> src/libexecline/el_spawn0.lo src/libexecline/el_spawn1.lo >>> src/libexecline/el_substandrun.lo src/l >>> ibexecline/el_substandrun_str.lo src/libexecline/el_substitute.lo >>> src/libexecline/el_transform.lo src/libexecline/el_vardupl.lo >>> src/libexecline/exlsn_define.lo src >>> /libexecline/exlsn_elglob.lo src/libexecline/exlsn_import.lo >>> src/libexecline/exlsn_multidefine.lo src/libexecline/exlsn_exlp.lo >>> src/libexecline/exlsn_main.lo src/l >>> ibexecline/exlsn_free.lo src/libexecline/exlp.lo >>> >>> I don't see -lskarnet. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Buck Evan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Removing the execline patch results in: >>>> >>>> >>>> dh_shlibdeps -O--parallel -O--autodest >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol waitpid_nointr used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol PROG used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol stralloc_catb used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol env_get2 used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol env_string used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol byte_chr used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pathexec0_run used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol str_start used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol stralloc_free used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol uint320_scan_base used by >>>> debian/execline/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 found in >>>> none of the libraries >>>> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: 18 other similar warnings have been skipped >>>> (use -v to see them all) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The manpage >>>> <http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jaunty/man1/dpkg-shlibdeps.1.html> >>>> says: >>>> >>>> *symbol* *sym* *used* *by* *binary* *found* *in* *none* *of* *the* >>>> *libraries.* >>>> The indicated symbol has not been found in the libraries >>>> linked >>>> with the binary. The *binary* is most likely a library >>>> and it >>>> needs to be linked with an additional library during the >>>> build >>>> process (option *-l**library* of the linker). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's true that the execline.so doesn't link to skalibs.so even though it >>>> requires its symbols: >>>> >>>> >>>> $ ldd /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexecline.so.2.1.3.0 >>>> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffff2dfe000) >>>> libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff5dcf8c000) >>>> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff5dd53f000) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Laurent Bercot < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (Please follow-up this part of the thread to the skaware mailing-list.) >>>>> >>>>> On 12/08/2015 08:37, Buck Evan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/execline/debian/patches/02_link_against_libskarnet.patch >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/bukzor/s6-packaging/blob/dockerize/s6/debian/patches/75_dot_so_link_skarlib.patch >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Again this is because the build derps without them, but I forget the >>>>>> exact >>>>>> failure mode. >>>>>> I'll track down details upon request. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The parts for binaries and static libraries are clearly invalid. If >>>>> something breaks while building those, then there's a problem with the >>>>> way the build is invoked, or the options to configure. >>>>> For static libraries, -lskarnet is nonsense. For binaries, -lskarnet >>>>> is already listed in the requirements ($^) and should be translated >>>>> to a .a or .so by vpath resolution, so it is incorrect to list it >>>>> again. Something is definitely wrong if the package builds with them >>>>> while it won't build without. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still unsure about the shared libraries parts. I don't think >>>>> it should be needed, but my test suite isn't up to par and I need to >>>>> update it to test the problematic cases and understand exactly what >>>>> is happening. >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, please find the problem with your build and fix it. >>>>> Chances are you won't need the shared libraries patch either once >>>>> you've done that. :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems likely to me that you'll want to figure out and fix these two >>>>>> issues given your response to the above patch. >>>>>> Is that right? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and now you have work to do too. :P >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Laurent >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
