[Buildroot] [PATCH] gqview: Fix build failure due to missing -lm

Will Newton will.newton at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 18:23:36 UTC 2012


On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Valentine Barshak <gvaxon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 01:02 PM, Will Newton wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Valentine Barshak <gvaxon at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2012 12:51 AM, Will Newton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Valentine Barshak <gvaxon at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/2012 12:35 AM, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <gvaxon at gmail.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     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?

I think so, although it could do with a comment to say why it is
needed. Peter or Thomas may disagree though?

> Or do you mean configure/makefile(.in) should be patched to add libm
> dependency?

That is the proper long term fix that should be pushed to gqview upstream.


More information about the buildroot mailing list