bug-mailutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [bug-mailutils] Mailutils 2.99.97 now(*) available in experimental


From: Jordi Mallach
Subject: Re: [bug-mailutils] Mailutils 2.99.97 now(*) available in experimental
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:52:05 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:23:34PM +0300, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> > 2) lber_ldadd.patch: (currently disabled): when using
> >    LDFLAGS += -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed, Mailutils fails to build due to a
> >    missing -llber for libmuauth.
> > 
> >    However, the build will fail soon after as interdependencies between
> >    libs are missing all over the place (ie, eg. libmu_compat needing
> >    -lmailutils, etc), making the build fail with missing mu_* symbols.
> >    We already discussed this months (years?) ago, but the fix was a bit
> >    involved in the 2.x codebase.
> 
> Sorry, I fail to remember that... Can you give some more detail, please?

We're not giving explicit -l's for every lib providing symbols used by
other objects, so when using the above LDFLAGS, builds fail due to
unresolved symbols. AFAIK, some version of binutils-gold enabled this by
default and the fallout was so big it must have been reverted.

To see what happens, apply the lber_ldadd patch and then build using
LDFLAGS += -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed

The build should soon fail due to missing libmailutils symbols.

I guess a way to fix it is to generate variables such as MU_IMAP_CFLAGS
that can be set to the required value (-lmu_imap, or whatever the name
is), or empty if imap support is not enabled, and add those variables to
the CPPFLAGS of the libs/programs that may need them if enabled.

> Well, I won't manage to finish everything in a week, that's for sure.  I
> cannot be sure about a month, either.  My current load is a bit too
> much for that, even if I concentrate entirely on MU.  What I can
> promise, however, is that 3.0 will be ready by the end of the summer.

I'm not asking you to release in a hurry for us. :) Just wondering how
you'd feel about Debian shipping 2.99.98 in a release that will be around
for 3 years or so. If that's no problem, that'd be my obvious preference
too. A version number is just a version number.

-- 
Jordi Mallach PĂ©rez  --  Debian developer     http://www.debian.org/
address@hidden     address@hidden     http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]