oprofile should not link libbfd dynamically

fixed in oprofile_0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu1

Same problem again on karmic amd64:

$ opreport
opreport: error while loading shared libraries: libbfd-2.19.91.20090910.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
$ ls /usr/lib/libbfd*
/usr/lib/libbfd-2.19.91.20090923.so /usr/lib/libbfd.a /usr/lib/libbfd.so
$ dpkg-query -W oprofile binutils
binutils 2.19.91.20090923-0ubuntu1
oprofile 0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu1

Same problem with this version:

Package: oprofile
Architecture: i386
Version: 0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu1

$ opreport
opreport: error while loading shared libraries: libbfd-2.19.91.20090910.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I don't know a lot about this, but everything I've read in the last 15 minutes suggests that nothing should be linked dynamically toe libbfd (it's stated in the package info for binutils-dev, for example), but that it's rather easy to wind up with this on accident: http://<email address hidden>/msg631508.html . So, I guess... make sure the build procedures are in order.

Indeed. Ubuntu actually has a patch that isn’t in Debian to link libbfd dynamically. Let’s get rid of that.

Hi,

I don't think this is the right way to fix the problem with oprofile: the problem comes from an update of binutils, that has not been taken into account in oprofile because the package was FTBFS.

It's not the case anymore, so this can be simply fixed by recompiling the package.
Right now, it's not possible because of a bug in binutils, but as soon as it get fixed, I'll recompile it.

I'll unsubscribe u-u-s for the moment, and subscribe myself

Fabrice

This bug was fixed in the package oprofile - 0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu2

---------------
oprofile (0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu2) karmic; urgency=low

  * Rebuild using binutils-dev 2.20. LP: #426614.

 -- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:26:17 +0200

Thanks a billion for jumping in like fuckin' MacGyver and fixing this bug right before release! That's just priceless.

I got the updates now and tested it, works beautifully. Again, thanks a lot!!

Thanks for the rebuild. However, the root of this problem is that binutils-dev should never be linked dynamically. It says so in the package description: “Note that building Debian packages which depend on the shared libbfd is Not Allowed.” The Ubuntu-specific patch that causes oprofile to link libbfd dynamically is incorrect and should be removed.

Fabrice: Why do you think that oprofile should link libbfd dynamically?

 - The binutils-dev description is clear that you shouldn't do link dynamically
 - Linking dynamically is an Ubuntu-specific patch (that lacks any helpful explanation of why it's there)
 - This package has now broken repeatedly due to libbfd upgrades

From my perspective, all signs are pointing towards linking statically, and I can't come up with any justification for why we should be linking dynamically.

I'm going to go ahead and upload this, since nobody else seems to have suggested any reason that libbfd shouldn't be linked statically.

This bug was fixed in the package oprofile - 0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu3

---------------
oprofile (0.9.4+cvs20090629-2.1ubuntu3) lucid; urgency=low

  * Remove debian/patches/unstatic_libbfd.patch. It caused oprofile to
    break on every binutils upgrade because the libbfd soname changes
    frequently. Presumably for this reason, the package description for
    binutils-dev says “Note that building Debian packages which depend on
    the shared libbfd is Not Allowed.” (LP: #426614)
  * Don’t build-depend autoconf (just to keep the Debian diff smaller;
    this actually has no effect since automake1.10 already depends
    autoconf).
  * Undo the change in -2.1ubuntu2 to the versioned build-dependency on
    binutils-dev.
 -- Anders Kaseorg <email address hidden> Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:40:37 -0400