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

Bug#654581: libalias-dev: undefined reference to ip_next in libalias



Package: libalias-dev
Version: 8.2+ds2-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Hi!

  Seems the first patches were missing a last bit as alias_local.h
uses some magic to detect presence of some headers by their include
guards where the BSD naming doesn't match ours resulting in a
undefined reference to ip_next error message. Patch is below.

  Have you considered also adding the libalias_*.so files to the (I
guess) libalias7 package? If not for some reason?

Regards

    Christoph

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: kfreebsd-i386 (i386)

Kernel: kFreeBSD 8.2-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages libalias-dev depends on:
ii  libalias7  8.2+ds2-1

libalias-dev recommends no packages.

libalias-dev suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information
Description: Fix include-guard detection
 alias_local.h uses some detection for include guards to decide
 whether to build in some inline functions. These only work with
 freebsd style include guards and need fixing for our headers
Author: Christoph@debian.org

--- freebsd-libs-8.2+ds2.orig/sys/netinet/libalias/alias_local.h
+++ freebsd-libs-8.2+ds2/sys/netinet/libalias/alias_local.h
@@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ enum alias_tcp_state {
 	ALIAS_TCP_STATE_DISCONNECTED
 };
 
-#if defined(_NETINET_IP_H_)
+#if defined(__NETINET_IP_H)
 static __inline void *
 ip_next(struct ip *iphdr)
 {
@@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ ip_next(struct ip *iphdr)
 }
 #endif
 
-#if defined(_NETINET_TCP_H_)
+#if defined(__NETINET_TCP_H)
 static __inline void *
 tcp_next(struct tcphdr *tcphdr)
 {
@@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ tcp_next(struct tcphdr *tcphdr)
 }
 #endif
 
-#if defined(_NETINET_UDP_H_)
+#if defined(__NETINET_UDP_H)
 static __inline void *
 udp_next(struct udphdr *udphdr)
 {

Reply to: