From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valentine Barshak Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:25:28 +0400 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] gqview: Fix build failure due to missing -lm In-Reply-To: References: <1349555736-10008-1-git-send-email-gvaxon@gmail.com> <5088400C.4040000@gmail.com> <50885F26.8000701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50897608.5080805@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 10/25/2012 01:02 PM, Will Newton wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Valentine Barshak wrote: >> On 10/25/2012 12:51 AM, Will Newton wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Valentine Barshak >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2012 12:35 AM, Valentine Barshak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak >>>>> --- >>>>> package/gqview/gqview.mk | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/package/gqview/gqview.mk b/package/gqview/gqview.mk >>>>> index 2f64cd0..7d09fda 100644 >>>>> --- a/package/gqview/gqview.mk >>>>> +++ b/package/gqview/gqview.mk >>>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ GQVIEW_VERSION = 2.1.5 >>>>> GQVIEW_SOURCE = gqview-$(GQVIEW_VERSION).tar.gz >>>>> GQVIEW_SITE = http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gqview >>>>> GQVIEW_DEPENDENCIES = host-pkg-config libgtk2 >>>>> +GQVIEW_CONF_ENV = LIBS="-lm" >>>>> >>>>> $(eval $(autotools-package)) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Does this work for everyone else or is it just deprecated and nobody >>>> should >>>> use it? >>>> >>>> I can't build without -lm neither in BR nor using my native host tools. >>> >>> >>> Which version of binutils are you using? 2.22? >>> >> >> Yes, 2.22. > > I believe this is caused by an issue with linking indirectly with the > newer binutils. gqview relies on a library that is linked against libm > but does not explicitly link against libm itself. Before 2.22 binutils > would copy the DT_NEEDED entries from the library into gqview but it > does not do this any more. gqview calls pow() and sqrt() directly, though it doesn't link against libm. > > A number of packages are affected by this. I believe the correct fix > is to modify the affected packages to link against the libraries they > use explicitly. > Is the above patch OK? Or do you mean configure/makefile(.in) should be patched to add libm dependency? Thanks, Val.