Bug#1132159: zlib1g-udeb has new depends (lib32z1)
Mark Brown <[email protected]> Sun, 29 Mar 2026 23:02:30 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general,gmane.linux.debian.ports.amd64,gmane.linux.debian.devel.boot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--ntcw9UnUr3HDveID Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 05:35:01PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Roland Clobus <[email protected]> (2026-03-28): > Let's look at the dependencies at the ELF level: > (unstable-amd64-devel)kibi@tokyo:/tmp/zlib-1.3.dfsg+really1.3.2$ objd= ump -x debian/zlib1g-udeb/usr/lib/libminizip.so.1.0.0|grep NEEDED > NEEDED libz.so.1 > NEEDED libc.so.6 > (unstable-amd64-devel)kibi@tokyo:/tmp/zlib-1.3.dfsg+really1.3.2$ objd= ump -x debian/zlib1g-udeb/usr/lib/libz.so.1.3.2|grep NEEDED > NEEDED libc.so.6 > I think there might be some confusion going on because of the duality of > =E2=80=9Clibz 1=E2=80=9D entries: =2E.. > I suppose the first one gets picked up (which is arch-specific, and > doesn't feature a udeb line) instead of the second one (which is > generic and is desired in this case). I'm not sure how to best solve > this. This looks like a debhelper bug, it's not coping with lib32 versions of libraries properly here - AFAICT it isn't checking the architecture of the ELF files it's looking at when matching the udeb. --ntcw9UnUr3HDveID Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmnJoXMACgkQJNaLcl1U h9BKFwf+MZIb1JjXOSsG04BCYBaqMMwZG6xZPL0IkOsTOiEpTjpkq5P8zPJArUL3 n4i8cH1j5l4BfaQOAR2ZaNZ0WiKXiPYoSgHTJm00xLyOLI2R1qejQN6fhcDab4D0 o3OI1yU1Ch04aEmtbMYJVnu4/MkjklzwlBVJNkpZtCbFWR/2m8DBd3bnRqXWmFYc Wah+2CbES0VMC1RB9SCjHkiAXiWnTQgM/LuRiR3qgcXvJGhoDlBlVTZDG9TRp6Pw /2BEQ5nQthcosdNhwWrSNplAtRWeAvFEL7VljLgKXdnBdj0KYP06GZrr7r4UXIH6 pL9wEhfkNeXEOP2SJU8J3Lt0j3mAcA== =Fpda -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ntcw9UnUr3HDveID--