Bug#622003: bacula: FTBFS: ld: cannot find -lbaccfg
tags 622003 + fixed-upstream thanks On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 02:02:32PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on > amd64. > > Relevant part: > > g++ -c -pipe -g -D_REENTRANT -Wall -W -DQT_GUI_LIB -DQT_CORE_LIB > > -DQT_SHARED -I/usr/share/qt4/mkspecs/linux-g++ -I. > > -I/usr/include/qt4/QtCore -I/usr/include/qt4/QtGui -I/usr/include/qt4 -I.. > > -I. -Iconsole -Irestore -Iselect -Imoc -Iui -o obj/qrc_main.o qrc_main.cpp > > /build/user-bacula_5.0.2-3-amd64-MhI0mJ/bacula-5.0.2/debian/tmp-build-sqlite3/libtool > > --silent --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -o bat obj/main.o obj/bat_conf.o > > obj/mainwin.o obj/qstd.o obj/pages.o obj/dircomm.o obj/dircomm_auth.o > > obj/console.o obj/prerestore.o obj/restore.o obj/brestore.o obj/label.o > > obj/relabel.o obj/mount.o obj/run.o obj/runcmd.o obj/estimate.o obj/prune.o > > obj/select.o obj/textinput.o obj/medialist.o obj/mediaview.o > > obj/mediaedit.o obj/joblist.o obj/clients.o obj/storage.o obj/content.o > > obj/fileset.o obj/joblog.o obj/job.o obj/jobs.o obj/restoretree.o > > obj/help.o obj/mediainfo.o obj/dirstat.o obj/clientstat.o obj/storstat.o > > obj/fmtwidgetitem.o obj/comboutil.o obj/moc_mainwin.o obj/moc_dircomm.o > > obj/moc_console.o obj/moc_restore.o obj/moc_label.o obj/moc_relabel.o > > obj/moc_mount.o obj/moc_run.o obj/moc_select.o obj/moc_textinput.o > > obj/moc_medialist.o obj/moc_mediaview.o obj/moc_mediaedit.o > > obj/moc_joblist.o obj/moc_clients.o obj/moc_storage.o obj/moc_content.o > > obj/moc_fileset.o obj/moc_joblog.o obj/moc_job.o obj/moc_jobs.o > > obj/moc_restoretree.o obj/moc_help.o obj/moc_mediainfo.o obj/moc_dirstat.o > > obj/moc_clientstat.o obj/moc_storstat.o obj/qrc_main.o-L/usr/lib > > -L../lib -lbaccfg -lbac -lssl -lcrypto -lQtGui -lQtCore -lpthread > > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lbaccfg > > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lbac > > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status This happened due to the switch to OpenSSL 1.0.0; upstream's configure had a minor bug. It's fixed in the recent bacula 5.0.3 release. I'm considering a QA upload. In case I happen to not go through with it, this info should help the next vict^Wmaintainer... Hauke Upstream's bug: #1606 Upstream commit: 8de4d80e35d800bfcb3a6d5ef15e1573ccb06bf1 -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahmwww.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundationwww.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#622435: opencryptoki: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Package: opencryptoki Version: 2.2.8+dfsg-4 Severity: normal User: codeh...@debian.org Usertags: la-file-removal To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed or stripped of the dependency_libs variable. http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00055.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00199.html Data has been obtained from the output of an automated script: http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt The output is best read in conjunction with the criteria from this post to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html To generate the list of packages, I've used: grep -v depended-on current.txt |cut -d: -f1 The data is regularly updated but please accept my apologies if you have made an upload which changes the situation since the data was parsed. opencryptoki appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. In most cases, the .la file(s) can simply be removed as the process behind this MBF has already identified that there are no further dependencies using the .la file. In the unusual case that your package uses libltdl directly, it is still necessary to empty the dependency_libs part of all .la files remaining in the package. Once opencryptoki is fixed, the process will repeat and other packages which you maintain may need to be fixed in turn. It is important that packages are fixed in sequence to avoid FTBFS bugs. If you believe that your package needs both the .la file and the dependency_libs settings, please raise this on debian-devel for clarification. -- Neil Williams = codeh...@debian.org http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1Q9kYF-0002Np-Gt@sylvester.codehelp
Bug#622444: libxml++: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Package: libxml++ Version: 1.0.4-3 Severity: normal User: codeh...@debian.org Usertags: la-file-removal To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed or stripped of the dependency_libs variable. http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00055.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00199.html Data has been obtained from the output of an automated script: http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt The output is best read in conjunction with the criteria from this post to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html To generate the list of packages, I've used: grep -v depended-on current.txt |cut -d: -f1 The data is regularly updated but please accept my apologies if you have made an upload which changes the situation since the data was parsed. libxml++ appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. In most cases, the .la file(s) can simply be removed as the process behind this MBF has already identified that there are no further dependencies using the .la file. In the unusual case that your package uses libltdl directly, it is still necessary to empty the dependency_libs part of all .la files remaining in the package. Once libxml++ is fixed, the process will repeat and other packages which you maintain may need to be fixed in turn. It is important that packages are fixed in sequence to avoid FTBFS bugs. If you believe that your package needs both the .la file and the dependency_libs settings, please raise this on debian-devel for clarification. -- Neil Williams = codeh...@debian.org http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1Q9kYA-0002Ir-JK@sylvester.codehelp
Bug#622472: libspf: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Package: libspf Version: 0.999-1.0.0-p3.dfsg-3 Severity: normal User: codeh...@debian.org Usertags: la-file-removal To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed or stripped of the dependency_libs variable. http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00055.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00199.html Data has been obtained from the output of an automated script: http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt The output is best read in conjunction with the criteria from this post to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html To generate the list of packages, I've used: grep -v depended-on current.txt |cut -d: -f1 The data is regularly updated but please accept my apologies if you have made an upload which changes the situation since the data was parsed. libspf appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. In most cases, the .la file(s) can simply be removed as the process behind this MBF has already identified that there are no further dependencies using the .la file. In the unusual case that your package uses libltdl directly, it is still necessary to empty the dependency_libs part of all .la files remaining in the package. Once libspf is fixed, the process will repeat and other packages which you maintain may need to be fixed in turn. It is important that packages are fixed in sequence to avoid FTBFS bugs. If you believe that your package needs both the .la file and the dependency_libs settings, please raise this on debian-devel for clarification. -- Neil Williams = codeh...@debian.org http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1Q9kY9-0002HT-5B@sylvester.codehelp
Bug#622495: librsync: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Package: librsync Version: 0.9.7-7 Severity: normal User: codeh...@debian.org Usertags: la-file-removal To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed or stripped of the dependency_libs variable. http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00055.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00199.html Data has been obtained from the output of an automated script: http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt The output is best read in conjunction with the criteria from this post to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html To generate the list of packages, I've used: grep -v depended-on current.txt |cut -d: -f1 The data is regularly updated but please accept my apologies if you have made an upload which changes the situation since the data was parsed. librsync appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. In most cases, the .la file(s) can simply be removed as the process behind this MBF has already identified that there are no further dependencies using the .la file. In the unusual case that your package uses libltdl directly, it is still necessary to empty the dependency_libs part of all .la files remaining in the package. Once librsync is fixed, the process will repeat and other packages which you maintain may need to be fixed in turn. It is important that packages are fixed in sequence to avoid FTBFS bugs. If you believe that your package needs both the .la file and the dependency_libs settings, please raise this on debian-devel for clarification. -- Neil Williams = codeh...@debian.org http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1Q9kY8-0002Gs-KQ@sylvester.codehelp
Bug#622540: libytnef: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Package: libytnef Version: 1.5-2 Severity: normal User: codeh...@debian.org Usertags: la-file-removal To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed or stripped of the dependency_libs variable. http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00055.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00199.html Data has been obtained from the output of an automated script: http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt The output is best read in conjunction with the criteria from this post to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html To generate the list of packages, I've used: grep -v depended-on current.txt |cut -d: -f1 The data is regularly updated but please accept my apologies if you have made an upload which changes the situation since the data was parsed. libytnef appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. In most cases, the .la file(s) can simply be removed as the process behind this MBF has already identified that there are no further dependencies using the .la file. In the unusual case that your package uses libltdl directly, it is still necessary to empty the dependency_libs part of all .la files remaining in the package. Once libytnef is fixed, the process will repeat and other packages which you maintain may need to be fixed in turn. It is important that packages are fixed in sequence to avoid FTBFS bugs. If you believe that your package needs both the .la file and the dependency_libs settings, please raise this on debian-devel for clarification. -- Neil Williams = codeh...@debian.org http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1Q9kYA-0002Iz-N8@sylvester.codehelp
