GNU bug report logs - #27848
guix: build-system: gnu: Avoid warnings from "libtool finish"

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 27848 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 27848 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: guix: build-system: gnu: Avoid warnings from "libtool finish"
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:40:33 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The "ldconfig not found" warnings confused me, and caused a bug report
previously.

[0001-guix-build-system-gnu-Avoid-warnings-from-libtool-fi.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 27848 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 27848 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#27848] guix: build-system: gnu: Avoid warnings from "libtool
 finish"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:28:55 +0200

Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> --- a/guix/build/gnu-build-system.scm
> +++ b/guix/build/gnu-build-system.scm
> @@ -271,9 +271,15 @@ makefiles."
>      ;; Call `configure' with a relative path.  Otherwise, GCC's build system
>      ;; (for instance) records absolute source file names, which typically
>      ;; contain the hash part of the `.drv' file, leading to a reference leak.
> -    (zero? (apply system* bash
> -                  (string-append srcdir "/configure")
> -                  flags))))
> +    (and (zero? (apply system* bash
> +                       (string-append srcdir "/configure")
> +                       flags))
> +         ;; Avoid warnings about from "libtool finish" about not finding
> +         ;; ldconfig.
> +         (if (file-exists? "libtool")
> +             (begin (substitute* "libtool" (("ldconfig") ":"))
> +                    #t)
> +             #t))))
>  

I’m not too keen on this approach, in large part because I’ve got used
to the “ldconfig not found” messages, but also because a simple change
like this can create more problems than what it solves: packages where
the “libtool” script lives in a different directory, packages where
“libtool” is a different thing, packages where it’s read-only or where
it’s a directory, etc.

Since this is a rebuild-the-world change, we have to make sure it’s
really worth it.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #11 received at 27848 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 27848 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#27848] guix: build-system: gnu: Avoid warnings from "libtool
 finish"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:17:48 +0100

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> I’m not too keen on this approach, in large part because I’ve got used
> to the “ldconfig not found” messages,

It's OK if you know, but I assume it's common for newbies to see it and
waste time, as at least two of us did.

> but also because a simple change
> like this can create more problems than what it solves: packages where
> the “libtool” script lives in a different directory, packages where
> “libtool” is a different thing, packages where it’s read-only or where
> it’s a directory, etc.

OK, but I thought the common case of it at top level was worth fixing.
I guess you could check it's really a libtool script before editing it.

However, is there a good reason not to provide a dummy ldconfig which
does nothing, or prints a message about not doing anything?

Message #14 received at 27848 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 27848 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#27848] guix: build-system: gnu: Avoid warnings from "libtool
 finish"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 21:26:06 +0200

Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I’m not too keen on this approach, in large part because I’ve got used
>> to the “ldconfig not found” messages,
>
> It's OK if you know, but I assume it's common for newbies to see it and
> waste time, as at least two of us did.

Yeah, I see.

>> but also because a simple change
>> like this can create more problems than what it solves: packages where
>> the “libtool” script lives in a different directory, packages where
>> “libtool” is a different thing, packages where it’s read-only or where
>> it’s a directory, etc.
>
> OK, but I thought the common case of it at top level was worth fixing.
> I guess you could check it's really a libtool script before editing it.
>
> However, is there a good reason not to provide a dummy ldconfig which
> does nothing, or prints a message about not doing anything?

I’d think it’s safer to just not provide it at all.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.