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

Re: Bug#644588: gle-graphics: FTBFS: Message: /usr/lib/libgle-graphics-4.2.2.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> 
> The problem seems be in src/gle/file_io.cpp:
> 
> #if defined(__UNIX__) && !defined(__MACOS__) && !defined(__FREEBSD__)
>         /* try to read location from the /proc/self/exe file */
>         char path[PATH_MAX];
>         struct stat stat_buf;
>         string path2 = "/proc/self/exe";
> 
> 
> There is a "/proc/self/exe" support under GNU/kFreeBSD, but it is
> limited, namely inside combination of bind mounts and chroots.
> I bet that configuration of buildd have been changed in mean time.
> In fact the /proc/self/exe file systems is linuxism.

On the porter machines /proc is mounted, also inside the chroots:
null            /proc           linprocfs  rw               0       0
null            /srv/chroot/sid/proc        linprocfs rw    0      2

It is possible that this is a linuxism, but if this should not be used on
bsd, wouldn't it be better if the proc filesystem is NOT available on the
porter boxes?  Or at least document it so that package maintainers can find
it. I do not see proc mentioned here
http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_FAQ
or here
http://glibc-bsd.alioth.debian.org/porting/PORTING
When I log onto the hurd porter box, I get some links to porting issues,
which I think is a great idea (but they also don't mention proc...)

> Please try this:
> 
> --- src/gle/file_io.cpp
> +++ src/gle/file_io.cpp
> @@ -1334,7 +1334,7 @@
>                 return true;
>         }
>  #endif
> -#if defined(__UNIX__) && !defined(__MACOS__) && !defined(__FREEBSD__)
> +#if defined(__linux__)
>         /* try to read location from the /proc/self/exe file */
>         char path[PATH_MAX];
>         struct stat stat_buf;

Thanks for the patch. This works on the porterbox, so I hope it will also
work on the buildds.

Christian


Reply to: