On Thu 21 Jul 2022 at 10:42:41 (-0500), Igor Korot wrote:
> 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".
>
> I do not copy anything.
> Its all started because I tried to build my software on freshly installed
> copy of the Debian OS + unixODBC + unixODBC-dev packages.
>
> NOTHING ELSE.
Fine. I know that now. But you posted, for example, that you ran
pkg-config, without saying what it was or where you got it.
(As well as any scripts that might be floating around, there are
at least two programs with that name in Debian.)
> Please check the Makefile.am I posted above. I did the addition of
> odbc_config based on the suggestion of Nick Gorham, who is
> official maintainer of unixODBC and whose reply I quoted.
>
> I didn't even know that the script of that nature existed.
And I see no mention of Gorham earlier than when I wrote my post.
Everything I've written has been based on what was in the thread
at that time and I've no interest in how each of my posts relates
to anything posted after it was written.
> Now, of course I tried to look at the "possible solution/workaround"
> suggested in this thread. But they all are just that - workarounds.
Yes, and I can't divine where your priorities lie without being told.
We trade in workarounds on this list, as well as tracking down bugs
and suggesting fixes for Debian.
> > > 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.
>
> Also, please see Mr. Langacek's reply in the URL I posted.
Sure, I've read that, now that it's in the thread, and I had already
quoted #422207 earlier. I don't know how to reconcile the recent
six word reply with what's said in that bug, nor where their
odbc_config came from (and I'll admit that I'm not trying very
hard, either).
But you're not advancing your cause by taking umbrage at my
criticism of your earlier posts for being scant on information.
> > > 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.)
Cheers,
David.
