1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.GENTOO.USER

  • Re: [gentoo-user] Problem when installing two packages from the binhost

    From Eli Schwartz@21:1/5 to Dr Rainer Woitok on Sun May 11 07:20:01 2025
    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------S1fQuqL20dfpZQTrAgSV71N7
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    On 5/10/25 9:26 AM, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
    Greetings,

    yesterday evening I ran into a problem involving packages "=media-libs/ libraw-0.21.2" and "=media-libs/libcdr-0.1.8", "emerge", the binhost, "revdep-rebuild", and possibly also the configuration of my rig. The problem is reliably reproducible here using six commands:




    $ sudo revdep-rebuild --ignore --nocolor --pretend --verbose
    * This is the new python coded version
    * Please report any bugs found using it.
    * The original revdep-rebuild script is installed as revdep-rebuild.sh
    * Please file bugs at: https://bugs.gentoo.org/
    * Collecting system binaries and libraries
    * Collecting dynamic linking information
    * Scanning files
    * Checking dynamic linking consistency
    * Broken files that require: liblcms2_threaded.so (64 bits)
    * /usr/lib64/libcdr-0.1.so.1.0.8
    * /usr/lib64/libraw.so.23.0.0
    * /usr/lib64/libraw_r.so.23.0.0
    * Broken files that require: liblcms2_fast_float.so (64 bits)
    * /usr/lib64/libcdr-0.1.so.1.0.8
    * /usr/lib64/libraw.so.23.0.0
    * /usr/lib64/libraw_r.so.23.0.0
    * Assign files to packages
    * /usr/lib64/libcdr-0.1.so.1.0.8 -> media-libs/libcdr-0.1.8
    * /usr/lib64/libraw_r.so.23.0.0 -> media-libs/libraw-0.21.2
    * /usr/lib64/libraw.so.23.0.0 -> media-libs/libraw-0.21.2


    This is an interesting claim, huh. It looks like this package was built
    some time ago, and links to

    /usr/lib64/liblcms2_fast_float.so

    which does exist, by the way. I think revdep-rebuild is incorrect here.
    It is a symlink to /usr/lib64/liblcms2_fast_float.so.2, which also
    exists, so this package doesn't need to be rebuilt.

    That being said, it's quite confusing that the linker didn't resolve the symlink as it's supposed to. In fact if I build it today, it *does*.
    This is technically vulnerable to ABI breakage in the future.

    ... or would be, if the plugin got used at all. Libtool as usual loses -Wl,--as-needed, pfft.



    Does anybody out there have an idea why these two packages are not in- stallable from the binhost or what else is going wrong here?


    They are "installable", as portage will install them with --getbinpkg :) whether or not revdep-rebuild then complains about them. Maybe there is something we can do about that though.


    --
    Eli Schwartz

    --------------S1fQuqL20dfpZQTrAgSV71N7--

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    wnsEABYIACMWIQTnFNnmK0TPZHnXm3qEp9ErcA0vVwUCaCAxewUDAAAAAAAKCRCEp9ErcA0vV4zl AQDeZmNV9g/GMq1llJROc0/ui4tOMgWB1pmkP6eGP11MOAD/WkAeYpqhMydQ+yI1uSFW6QLdhUOg rzYdnhST9VFRcwQ=
    =SKJE
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)