Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:31 AM David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu 21 Jul 2022 at 10:15:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:06:53AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > I thought that was what the attached was (actually for Ubuntu AIUI).
> > > As I originally wrote, "As if by magic, […] someone else supplies a copy."
> > >
> >
> > > #! /bin/sh
> > >
> > > # This shell script saves various pieces of information about the
> > > # installed version of unixODBC. Packages that interface to
> > > # unixODBC can use it to configure their build.
> > > # This file replaces the standard odbc_config, which is not
> > > # relocatable
> > > #
> > > # Author: Alberto Di Meglio <alberto.di.meg...@cern.ch>
> > > # Public domain
> > >
> > > me=`basename $0`
> > > mydir=`dirname $0`
> > > mydir=${mydir%/bin}
> > >
> > > # stored configuration values
> > > val_prefix="$mydir"
> > > val_bindir="$mydir/bin"
> > > val_includedir="$mydir/include"
> > > val_libdir="$mydir/lib"
> > > val_libs="-L$mydir/lib -lodbc"
> > > val_version='2.2.11'
> >
> > This is not going to give the correct linker arguments. It's going to
> > spit out a -L option which is totally unneeded, and worse, the *content*
> > of that -L option is going to depend on where the operating system thinks
> > the script has been "installed".
> >
> > If the script is "installed" in /usr/local/bin/odbc_config, it's going
> > to spit out -L/usr/local/lib -lodbc.
>
> Yes, there's a hint in the file: "This file replaces the standard
> odbc_config, which is not relocatable". It may be that this script
> is sensitive to where it is placed, even though that was not the
> intention. That alone might cause it, or something else, to fail.
>
> It's also quite possible that the OP copied it into …/pkg-config,
> ran that, and reported "it fails." Who knows?, hence my complaint:
> "whether you have taken any actions as a result of reading the
> URLs that have been mentioned".
>
> > As the script itself says,
> >
> > > # This file replaces the standard odbc_config
> >
> > So, why not use the "standard odbc_config", whatever that is?
>
> We're told that it's not part of the Debian distribution.
>
> > Again, this really needs to be taken up with the upstream maintainers of
> > the library, and with the Debian maintainer(s) of the Debian packages of
> > the library.
>
> I think it kind of was, in the Debian BTS that I referenced and
> advised the OP to read carefully. I can say no more because,
> unlike you, my experience of compiling C runs to not much more
> than including a couple of libraries and producing an a.out.
> (Two decades ago, I compiled kernels, but kernel-package made
> that trivial apart from deciding which items to include.)
So, I got a reply from Nick Gorham (maintainer of unixODBC).
In the E-mail he said:
[quote]
I think pkg-config is made during the build time to match the distribution"
[/quote]
Which means that I will be needing something in the configure
to check if odbc_config exists, use it if it is and if not - use
pkg-config.
It still feels wrong however, that the distro maintainers dictate
to upstream packages how to do their business.
It should be the other way around.
Thank you.
BTW
1. vWhere can I file the bug about missing odbc_config?
2. Is there a ML/forum/whatever to discuss the issues like this?
This forum is for users of the OS, not people who wants to develop
software on the OS.
Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
