Re: odbc_config missing
On Thu 21 Jul 2022 at 11:47:58 (-0500), Igor Korot wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:31 AM David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu 21 Jul 2022 at 10:15:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:06:53AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > > I thought that was what the attached was (actually for Ubuntu AIUI).
> > > > As I originally wrote, "As if by magic, […] someone else supplies a copy."
> > > >
> > >
> > > > #! /bin/sh
> > > >
> > > > # This shell script saves various pieces of information about the
> > > > # installed version of unixODBC. Packages that interface to
> > > > # unixODBC can use it to configure their build.
> > > > # This file replaces the standard odbc_config, which is not
> > > > # relocatable
> > > > #
> > > > # Author: Alberto Di Meglio <alberto.di.meglio@cern.ch>
> > > > # Public domain
> > > >
> > > > me=`basename $0`
> > > > mydir=`dirname $0`
> > > > mydir=${mydir%/bin}
> > > >
> > > > # stored configuration values
> > > > val_prefix="$mydir"
> > > > val_bindir="$mydir/bin"
> > > > val_includedir="$mydir/include"
> > > > val_libdir="$mydir/lib"
> > > > val_libs="-L$mydir/lib -lodbc"
> > > > val_version='2.2.11'
> > >
> > > This is not going to give the correct linker arguments. It's going to
> > > spit out a -L option which is totally unneeded, and worse, the *content*
> > > of that -L option is going to depend on where the operating system thinks
> > > the script has been "installed".
> > >
> > > If the script is "installed" in /usr/local/bin/odbc_config, it's going
> > > to spit out -L/usr/local/lib -lodbc.
> >
> > Yes, there's a hint in the file: "This file replaces the standard
> > odbc_config, which is not relocatable". It may be that this script
> > is sensitive to where it is placed, even though that was not the
> > intention. That alone might cause it, or something else, to fail.
> >
> > It's also quite possible that the OP copied it into …/pkg-config,
> > ran that, and reported "it fails." Who knows?, hence my complaint:
> > "whether you have taken any actions as a result of reading the
> > URLs that have been mentioned".
> >
> > > As the script itself says,
> > >
> > > > # This file replaces the standard odbc_config
> > >
> > > So, why not use the "standard odbc_config", whatever that is?
> >
> > We're told that it's not part of the Debian distribution.
> >
> > > Again, this really needs to be taken up with the upstream maintainers of
> > > the library, and with the Debian maintainer(s) of the Debian packages of
> > > the library.
> >
> > I think it kind of was, in the Debian BTS that I referenced and
> > advised the OP to read carefully. I can say no more because,
> > unlike you, my experience of compiling C runs to not much more
> > than including a couple of libraries and producing an a.out.
> > (Two decades ago, I compiled kernels, but kernel-package made
> > that trivial apart from deciding which items to include.)
>
> So, I got a reply from Nick Gorham (maintainer of unixODBC).
>
> In the E-mail he said:
>
> [quote]
> I think pkg-config is made during the build time to match the distribution"
> [/quote]
I don't know what the significance of such a one-line quote is.
I can only note that there are two Debian packages that already
include /usr/bin/pkg-config programs.
> Which means that I will be needing something in the configure
> to check if odbc_config exists, use it if it is and if not - use
> pkg-config.
>
> It still feels wrong however, that the distro maintainers dictate
> to upstream packages how to do their business.
I wasn't aware that they did. Distributions have policies, and AFAIK,
maintainers use patches to modify the upstream sources to fit in with
those policies.
> 1. vWhere can I file the bug about missing odbc_config?
Presumably in the Debian BTS, under the package that you're reporting
it's missing from.
> 2. Is there a ML/forum/whatever to discuss the issues like this?
> This forum is for users of the OS, not people who wants to develop
> software on the OS.
The unixodbc homepage mentions a mailing list that has been migrated
and fixed, but the entry's timestamp (2008) doesn't inspire confidence
that it's still active. Did the Debian maintainer not mention it?
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: