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

Re: libtiff borken - cannot build anymore?



Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> wrote:

> This results in:
>
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/annotate
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/gd2copypal
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/gd2togif
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/gd2topng
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/gdcmpgif
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/gdparttopng
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/gdtopng
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/giftogd2
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/pngtogd
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/pngtogd2
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/webpng
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt
> E: libgd3: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgd.so.3.0.0
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtiff5-alt

Yes, I'm afraid that's unavoidable.  This issue is mentioned in the
README.Debian file.  This works by installing the .so file in a
non-standard location so that it can coexist with libtiff4, and linking
in that way with libtool the rpath to be embedded.  Once the tiff
transition is completed and the packages are rebuilt, this problem will
go away.  Until then, you will have to use a lintian override.  Here's
mine from the vips package:

# This is temporary until libtiff5-alt-dev goes away.
libvips31: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>


Reply to: