[Oneiric, Natty, Maverick, Lucid SRU] Link libbfd statically

[Tim Gardner]

On 08/02/2011 07:21 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 02.08.2011 15:15, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 04:03 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> On 02.08.2011 12:00, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>>> SRU Justification:
>>>>>
>>>>> Impact: By dynamically linking libbfd, it is not possible to have
>>>>> older versions of the perf tool installed (as there can only be one
>>>>> version of this lib). Also, Debian policy actually forbids depending
>>>>> on a certain version of the library).
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix: Change the makefile to statically link libbfd. This is a Ubuntu
>>>>> specific change, though. Which unlikely will make it upstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Testcase: Check the perf version provided though the builders (it
>>>>> seems that building in chroots can cause builds not linking against
>>>>> libbfd at all as HAVE_CPLUS_DEMANGLE gets set). The ouput of ldd
>>>>> should not show libbfd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, having said this, maybe the better solution is to modify
>>>>> the build dependencies to cause the compile to have
>>>>> HAVE_CPLUS_DEMANGLE set. That way we do not need to carry a
>>>>> modification to the makefile which likely breaks...
>>>>
>>>> I like the sound of this latter, I think you said we could achieve this
>>>> by build-depending oni libiberty instead?  Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>> -apw
>>>
>>> No, the main difference seems to be whether HAVE_CPLUS_DEMANGLE is set when
>>> doing the compile or not. If it is set, then perf is only linked against
>>> -liberty. If not, it can be a combination of -libbfd, -liberty and -lz.
>>> I just have not yet found out what actually causes HAVE_CPLUS_DEMANGLE to be
>>> set. Its happening in my chroots, but apparently not when building on buildds.
>>>
>>> -Stefan
>>>
>>
>> Why can't we simply force it to be set in the Debian makefile?
>>
>
> I would suspect that it gets set if something is installed (and somthing which
> is not part of the build deps for the kernel). I'd rather get the setup right
> that to define something that (likely) is not true...
>

I guess I don't see what the issue is. The linux package already 
build-depends on binutils-dev which is the provider of libiberty.a. Why 
_doesn't_ setting HAVE_CPLUS_DEMANGLE fix the problem ?

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com