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

Re: Bug#628800: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*: libdjvulibre.so: undefined reference to symbol 'pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.3'



Done.

Note that the source of the problem is in libtool.

On Linux (and apparently on debian/kbsd), libtool links libraries

with -nostdlib and therefore prevents gcc to include -lpthread

automatically when given option -pthread.

- L.

On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 04:54 pm, Leon Bottou wrote:

> I believe Michael is right and I'll change that tonight.

> - L.

>

>

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Barak A. Pearlmutter [mailto:barak@cs.nuim.ie]

> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 4:45 PM

> > To: Michael Biebl

> > Cc: 628800@bugs.debian.org; debian-bsd@lists.debian.org; Leon Bottou

> > Subject: Re: Bug#628800: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*: libdjvulibre.so: undefined

> > reference to symbol 'pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.3'

> >

> > > I just wanted to mention, that there is a difference between

> > >

> > > *kfreebsd*-yes (my proposed patch)

> > > and

> > > *freebsd*-yes (what was merged upstream [1])

> > >

> > > afaik the freebsds don't use the glibc userland and I'm not sure if

> > > the thread libs on freebsd behave like the one on kfreebsd, so I just

> > > wanted to verify that what you merged upstream is intentional and the

> > > missing 'k' is not an oversight.

> >

> > I'm not sure: upstream did that patch independently of yours, and I saw it

> > looked about the same and blindly merged it.

> >

> > I'm CCing this message to upstream to let it be addressed directly.

> >

> > But I will close with a parenthetical grouse: isn't this exactly the sort

> of tedious

> > system-by-system manual non-future-proof groveling that autotools is

> > supposed to abolish? Could this be tested automatically using existing

> > autoconf macros?

> >

> > --Barak.

>


Reply to: