| 1 |
On Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 15 May 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Wednesday 14 May 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Mittwoch, 14. Mai 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > Hi folks, |
| 7 |
> > > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > > libmad-0.2.1 doens't install libmad.la. Programs linking to |
| 9 |
> > > > > it fail during link stage. Is it a known issue? |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > there is no 'libmad-0.2.1' on my system. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > It's weird. libmad-0.15.1b-r5 installs as libmad-0.2.1. From the |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > emerge output: |
| 16 |
> > > >>> Merging media-libs/libmad-0.15.1b-r5 to / |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > --- /usr/ |
| 19 |
> > > --- /usr/lib/ |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > >>> /usr/lib/libmad.so -> libmad.so.0.2.1 |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > > --- /usr/lib/pkgconfig/ |
| 24 |
> > > |
| 25 |
> > > >>> /usr/lib/pkgconfig/mad.pc |
| 26 |
> > > >>> /usr/lib/libmad.a |
| 27 |
> > > >>> /usr/lib/libmad.so.0.2.1 |
| 28 |
> > > >>> /usr/lib/libmad.so.0 -> libmad.so.0.2.1 |
| 29 |
> > > |
| 30 |
> > > And indeed: |
| 31 |
> > > uwix uwe # ls -l /usr/lib/libmad* |
| 32 |
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 101062 May 15 09:10 /usr/lib/libmad.a |
| 33 |
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 May 15 09:10 /usr/lib/libmad.so -> |
| 34 |
> > > libmad.so.0.2.1 |
| 35 |
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 May 15 09:10 /usr/lib/libmad.so.0 |
| 36 |
> > > -> libmad.so.0.2.1 |
| 37 |
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 91472 May 15 09:10 |
| 38 |
> > > /usr/lib/libmad.so.0.2.1 |
| 39 |
> > > |
| 40 |
> > > Still, no libmad.la. |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > hm, you are right. But revdep-rebuilt should solve that problem. |
| 43 |
> > Not by creating the la file but by rebuilding the apps needing it. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> How? If the build system of a package uses libtool and insists on the |
| 46 |
> existence of this la file, revdep-rebuild wouldn't help. Actually I |
| 47 |
> tried to re-emerge failing package with "--oneshot" (not different |
| 48 |
> from what revdep-rebuild does) and it failed again due to the missing |
| 49 |
> la. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I could, of course, write the la file myself. In the end, it is just a |
| 52 |
> text file describing some properties of the liberary. But that seems |
| 53 |
> a very hackish work-around. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> I don't want to do a revdep-rebuild right now because I have a |
| 56 |
> half-baked update. And from my POV, it wouldn't help at all. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Uwe |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> Ignorance killed the cat, sir, curiosity was framed! |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
just run revdep-rebuilt. The la file is not really needed at all. But |
| 68 |
somewhere something 'thinks' to depend on it. revdep-rebuilt will fix that. |
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives