Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 247990 - net-im/kadu has and installs an internal copy of libgadu
Summary: net-im/kadu has and installs an internal copy of libgadu
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Dawid Węgliński (RETIRED)
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: bundled-libs
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2008-11-21 17:03 UTC by Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED)
Modified: 2009-02-11 08:44 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-11-21 17:03:23 UTC
Detected file collision(s):

        /usr/include/libgadu.h
        /usr/lib/libgadu.la
        /usr/lib/libgadu.a
        /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgadu.pc

Searching all installed packages for file collisions...

Press Ctrl-C to Stop

net-libs/libgadu-1.8.0
        /usr/include/libgadu.h
        /usr/lib/libgadu.a
        /usr/lib/libgadu.la
        /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgadu.pc

Package 'net-im/kadu-0.6.0.2' NOT merged due to file collisions. If
necessary, refer to your elog messages for the whole content of the
above message.
Comment 1 Robert Buchholz (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2009-02-04 17:22:41 UTC
No need to send patch upstream, latest version uses cmake and revamped build system.

*kadu-0.6.0.2-r1 (04 Feb 2009)

  04 Feb 2009; Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> metadata.xml,
  +files/kadu-0.6.0.2-kill-strip.patch, -kadu-0.6.0.1.ebuild, -kadu-0.6.0.2.ebuild,
  +kadu-0.6.0.2-r1.ebuild:
  Do allow building against internal libgadu, remove USE flag. This solves bug
  #256509 (file collision), bug #247990 (internal library copy) and security bug
  #244888 (buffer overread in libgadu). Do not strip binaries (bug #251995).
Comment 2 Robert Buchholz (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2009-02-04 17:23:30 UTC
[ never mind the first part of my comment ]