On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:27:58PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:16:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:45:53PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > A number of applications currently fail to build with something like: > > > | sparc-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -o .libs/ots ots.o ../src/.libs/libots-1.so /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so /usr/lib/libxml2.so -ldl -lz -lm /usr/lib/libpopt.so > > > | /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lz > > > In bug #378494, filed on one of these packages (ices2), Julien Cristau > > > first claims "this -lz comes from libxml2's .la file, which libtool > > > uses to link ices2. This could be fixed by libxml2-dev depending on > > > zlib1g-dev again, or not installing libxml2.la (which would probably > > > be better in the long term, but risks breaking existing packages)." > > > He later adds, "Actually, relibtoolizing ices2 (with the Debian libtool) > > > seems to be enough to fix this." > > > Should I file individual bugs on these packages or one grave bug on > > > libxml2. > > One grave bug on libxml2, please. The common case of linking against > > libxml2 using libtool is now broken, for no discernable reason. This is > > irresponsible library maintenance; it shouldn't be left to the maintainers > > of all the *other* packages to make this work again, particularly when we > > have freeze deadlines we want to be hitting... > The thing is, linking against libxml2 using libtool DOES work. If you use > a correct version of libtool. This is no excuse for breaking the buildability of dozens of packages that *don't* use that version of libtool without first coordinating. > Actually I want to remove the .la files... Removing the .la files is *worse*, it will break all libtool-using packages that link against any other library which ships .la its own .la files and depends on libxml2, which is approximately 48 libraries used to build 734 other packages in main -- an unknown but presumed high percentage of these depend on libtool for building, so this is definitely not the kind of transition I'd want to see happen without quite a bit of advanced planning. I'm all in favor of deprecating .la files in favor of pkg-config, but it's not something that can be done willy-nilly if we want to keep a release schedule. So yes, please re-add the dependency on libxml2-dev for the time being. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature