Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#22070 - [udev] 164-3 doesn't contain the needed link /lib/libudev.so

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Maurel (guy-kde) - Sunday, 12 December 2010, 14:50 GMT
Last edited by Tobias Powalowski (tpowa) - Wednesday, 26 January 2011, 21:14 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Thomas Bächler (brain0)
Architecture x86_64
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:
the package udev 164-3 doesn't contain the needed link
/lib/libudev.so
This task depends upon

Closed by  Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Wednesday, 26 January 2011, 21:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Comment by Tobias Powalowski (tpowa) - Sunday, 12 December 2010, 20:45 GMT
The link is now in /usr/lib
Comment by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Sunday, 12 December 2010, 21:28 GMT
What's your bug, please? I don't see any description of an actual problem.
Comment by Maurel (guy-kde) - Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 12:49 GMT
I couldn't bind.
Workaround: I done the symbolic link myself

It was present at least at version 162
Comment by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 12:52 GMT
Excuse me, I still do not understand the problem. Can you please describe precisely what you tried to do and how it failed?
Comment by Maurel (guy-kde) - Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 13:43 GMT
with the use of cmake, the generated link.txt-file spezified (some/most of the time) the needed libraries
as libxyz.so
Most of the libraries have also 3 inodes, ie.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 28. Mai 2010 libshadow.so -> libshadow.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 28. Mai 2010 libshadow.so.0 -> libshadow.so.0.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 62138 28. Mai 2010 libshadow.so.0.0.0

The libudev.so at version 164 has only 2 inodes.

The ld-command cannot work.
Comment by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 14:00 GMT
You still did not say what doesn't work, please provide an actual example of what is wrong, not some abstract claims I cannot verify.

ld works quite fine btw:

$ cat > "test.c" << "EOF"
> int main() {
> return 0;
> }
> EOF
$ gcc -o test test.c -Wall -ludev
$ ldd test
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fffcfff9000)
libudev.so.0 => /lib/libudev.so.0 (0x00007feb366be000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007feb36361000)
/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007feb368cb000)
$
Comment by Maurel (guy-kde) - Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 18:24 GMT
You are right. But It is not what I am pointing to. I try to be "not abstract".
I found a difference between the versions 163-1-x86_64 and 164-3-x86_64, as one can see below:
$ pacman -Q -l -p /var/cache/pacman/pkg/udev-163-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz | grep libudev.so
udev /lib/libudev.so
udev /lib/libudev.so.0
udev /lib/libudev.so.0.9.1
$ pacman -Q -l -p /var/cache/pacman/pkg/udev-164-3-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz | grep libudev.so
udev /lib/libudev.so.0
udev /lib/libudev.so.0.9.3
udev /usr/lib/libudev.so

The file libudev.so has changes the directory from /lib to /usr/lib, as written at the first comment
Is it an packaging error or a new feature, beginning at the version 164-3?
Comment by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 21:59 GMT
I know that, but you still fail to tell me why this is a bug.

This was probably caused by us, changing configure from --prefix=/ to --prefix=/usr, if I read the udev Makefile right. This is intended behaviour by upstream udev developers.
Comment by Maurel (guy-kde) - Thursday, 16 December 2010, 17:26 GMT
OK!
I used cmake to prepare kdelibs.
The next day I made a pacman -Su
I got without take care of it, the version 164-3 of udev
Tried to "make" and got the ld-problem

If this was "really" intended, I hope that some people had a good use of that change.

I found it not very pretty.
If cmake generate such new files, all the .o and libraries will needed to be build at new.
It takes lot of time for a so little change! I don't see now the advantage of the change,
my view might be to small.
Thanks for helping.

Loading...