Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 351919 - sys-fs/mdadm-3.1.4[static] shows warnings that may indicate a real problem
Summary: sys-fs/mdadm-3.1.4[static] shows warnings that may indicate a real problem
Status: RESOLVED CANTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo's Team for Core System packages
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 282100
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2011-01-17 15:43 UTC by Sebastian Pipping
Modified: 2011-01-18 19:48 UTC (History)
2 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 Sebastian Pipping gentoo-dev 2011-01-17 15:43:34 UTC
# USE=static CFLAGS="-Wall" ebuild mdadm-3.1.4.ebuild clean compile
[..]
config.o: In function `createline':
config.c:(.text+0xc07): warning: Using 'getgrnam' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
config.c:(.text+0xb2a): warning: Using 'getpwnam' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
config.o: In function `createline':
config.c:(.text+0xc07): warning: Using 'getgrnam' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
config.c:(.text+0xb2a): warning: Using 'getpwnam' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
>>> Source compiled.

Any ideas?
Comment 1 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2011-01-17 19:43:16 UTC
expected behavior for glibc static linking
Comment 2 Tolga Dalman 2011-01-18 08:16:37 UTC
Does that mean, the "static" mdadm binary is in fact NOT static but depends on libc.so ? In that case, an obvious fix is to remove the "static" USEFLAG from mdadm.
Alternatively those function could be replaced in the upstream code I suppose ...
Comment 3 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2011-01-18 19:48:12 UTC
you're talking a problem specific to *glibc*

we're not planning on patching glibc in any way to address this.  feel free to complain upstream, but they've already made it clear they dont care.