bug-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #29845] FTBFS on GNU/Hurd with -Wl,--no-undefined


From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: [bug #29845] FTBFS on GNU/Hurd with -Wl,--no-undefined
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:07:12 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; bg-bg) AppleWebKit/531.2+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/531.2+

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #29845 (project gnustep):

No news, unfortunately.  I'd be glad to provide a patch if I only knew what
would be the correct fix...  It seems that all platforms which use the
GS_FAKE_MAIN hack are affected; on GNU/Linux you can reproduce the problem
with

  ./configure --enable-fake-main LDFLAGS=-Wl,--no-undefined

To your questions:

> I'm guessing it's a build of a debian source package?

That's right.

> 1. Why is LDFLAGS set to "-Wl,-z,defs -Wl,--as-needed" ? 

The latter removes unnecessary dependencies.  When you link -lfoo and -lbar,
but you only need -lfoo, dpkg-shlibdeps will add an explicit package
dependency on the package providing libfoo.so.  -Wl,-z,defs is a safety check;
it enables symbol resolution at build time, to ensure that all objects are
linked against all libraries they use symbols from.

Note that this is not a Debian invention; most binary-based distros (Fedora,
Mandriva, etc.) use these flags for most packages, because this solves the
following vital issues:

1) package foo *must* depend on all packages it needs
2) in the ideal case package foo should not depend on any packages it doesn't
need,  because this causes inconvenience for users and more importantly,
complicates library transitions and the archive software (at least for
Debian)

> perhaps it's the cause of the problem?

Absolutely.  For the time being I workarounded the issue (to use only
--as-needed on GNU/Hurd).

> So the library is being built with the wrong objective-c library and/or
incorrectly 
> configured gnustep-make. 

Yes, this is fixed in 1.20.0-1, but this problem is not the culprit here.

> perhaps this bug report is obsolete

No, it's not.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?29845>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]