Need help with builderror (ppc only)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 18:09 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:47:43 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > Do you want to hear what it smells like? - Libtool archive dependency
> > hell.  Since neither libxml2-devel nor libxml2 include and provide the
> > /usr/lib/libxml2.la file, this is an indication that a different package
> > contains a hardcoded libtool archive inter-library dependency on this
> > file. Cases like this lead to the infamous guideline which says "Either
> > include .la files everywhere or drop them everywhere". However, since they
> > are not required for linking and only used in corner-cases (like old ltdl
> > or KDE using a broken ltdl), in the majority of packages, the .la files
> > only bear the risk of breaking (either immediately or some time in the
> > future) like this.
> > 
> 
> IOW, this is caused by some other package leaving a .la file lingering 
> around and that only on ppc?? Right?
No. 
This is caused by somebody having installed version x of package1
containing a *.la when building package2, causing package2 to pickup a
dependency on version x of package1's *.la, and then having rebuilt
version x+1 of package1 without the *.la. I.e. having removed the *.la
from package1 caused package2 to break.

You were trying to build package3, against package2 and version x+1 of
package1, thus triggered this dependency problem.

I.e. the cause very likely somebody having "switching on and off" *.la
rsp. the buildsystem had been in inconsistent state when you tried to
build your package.

> >>/bin/sed: can't read /usr/lib/libxml2.la: No such file or directory
> >>libtool: link: `/usr/lib/libxml2.la' is not a valid libtool archive
I would suspect libxml2 having been package1, and libgda having been
package2, but this is just a wild guess.

Ralf