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

Re: extern inline and ?stat64 fun in glibc



On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:00AM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:21:46PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > As many people know, som header change in libc6-dev made libqt3-mt (and maybe 
> > other packages) drop some symbols on one or more archs.
> > 
> > For full details, see the thread starting here:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00439.html, especially the 
> > post by Pierre here:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00580.html
> > 
> > For the result of this change, see the RC buglist against libqt3-mt
> > 
> > The question is now - what to do?
> > 
> > 1) Roll back the changes to libc6-dev and rebuild qt3
> > 2) patch in those symbols in qt3
> > 3) rename libqt3-mt and rebuild all 500 rdeps, including all of kde3.
> > 4) something else ?
> > 
> > I am currently most in favour of 1. And very much against 2. But hoping for 4.
> 
>   Well, I'd like to avoid (1) if possible.
> 
> > But please discuss and comment - and please keep me cc'ed. I am not subscribed 
> > to glibc list.
> 
>   Well, there is a possibility, the affected packages are ones that have
> undefined symbols on stat64 and that used to get their crack from
> another library (libqt3 here). We have to scan the whole archive for
> undefined symbols on stat64 and other alike symbols (we can probably
> find an exhaustive enough list, grep for __extern_inline in the
> libc6-dev basically).
> 
>   If that amount of packages is small, then the libraries that used to
> provide the symbols for them should have versionned conflicts, bump
> their shlibs, and then those packages should be binNMUed.
> 
>   Though this approach only works if there is (and I believe it's the
> case) few packages matching.
> 
>   What do you think ?
> 
> [ basically for qt3 it seems it would be only 3 conflicts, we can live
>   with that ]

  FWIW the list of symbols on amd64 seems to be the one attached. Don't
be afraid, there is a lot of guards to get them, and it's really likely
we won't have any matches in the archive on UNDEFINED symbols on them. I
don't have time to perform the scan yet though.



-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org
__argp_usage
__argz_next
__cmsg_nxthdr
__option_is_end
__option_is_short
__pthread_cleanup_routine
__signbit
__signbitf
__signbitl
argz_next
atof
atoi
atol
atoll
btowc
cimag
conj
creal
feof_unlocked
ferror_unlocked
fgetc_unlocked
fputc_unlocked
fstat
fstat64
fstatat
fstatat64
getc_unlocked
getchar
getchar_unlocked
getline
gnu_dev_major
gnu_dev_makedev
gnu_dev_minor
lstat
lstat64
mbrlen
mknod
mknodat
pthread_equal
putc_unlocked
putchar
putchar_unlocked
stat
stat64
strtoimax
strtoumax
tolower
toupper
vprintf
wcstoimax
wcstoumax
wctob

Attachment: pgpNuSc_wiDGr.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: