ubuntu-389-directory-server team mailing list archive
-
ubuntu-389-directory-server team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00353
[Bug 2052578] [NEW] 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
Public bug reported:
build fails with:
ldap/servers/slapd/back-ldbm/db-bdb/bdb_layer.c: At top level:
ldap/servers/slapd/back-ldbm/db-bdb/bdb_layer.c:429:26: error: unknown type name ‘off64_t’; did you mean ‘off_t’?
429 | bdb_seek43_large(int fd, off64_t offset, int whence)
| ^~~~~~~
| off_t
The source properly detects when to define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE but I think this is an ordering issue of the define and a standard library header include.
I can recreate this on an armhf machine by including <stdio.h> before
the LFS define.
** Affects: 389-ds-base (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Chris Peterson (cpete)
Status: New
** Changed in: 389-ds-base (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Chris Peterson (cpete)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
389 Directory Server, which is subscribed to 389-ds-base in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2052578
Title:
2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
Status in 389-ds-base package in Ubuntu:
New
Bug description:
build fails with:
ldap/servers/slapd/back-ldbm/db-bdb/bdb_layer.c: At top level:
ldap/servers/slapd/back-ldbm/db-bdb/bdb_layer.c:429:26: error: unknown type name ‘off64_t’; did you mean ‘off_t’?
429 | bdb_seek43_large(int fd, off64_t offset, int whence)
| ^~~~~~~
| off_t
The source properly detects when to define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE but I think this is an ordering issue of the define and a standard library header include.
I can recreate this on an armhf machine by including <stdio.h> before
the LFS define.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/389-ds-base/+bug/2052578/+subscriptions
Follow ups
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-10
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Nick Rosbrook, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Sergio Durigan Junior, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-09
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Sergio Durigan Junior, 2024-02-08
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-08
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-07
-
[Bug 2052578] Re: 2.4.4+dfsg1-1 is FTBFS on armhf in Noble
From: Chris Peterson, 2024-02-07