ubuntu-389-directory-server team mailing list archive

[Sergio Durigan Junior <2052578@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for providing a patch.  I noticed that you're suggesting that we
move that entire chunk of code from a header file to a specific source
file.  Without really testing it, I'm thinking whether such a change
isn't too invasive.  It will mean that other files including back-ldbm.h
won't benefit from the code in question.

I also took some time to look if upstream has experienced this problem,
but I couldn't find any reports there.  But what happens if you reorder
the header files on bdb_layer.c instead?  I haven't had the time/chance
to give it a try, but maybe we can find a simpler approach to this
problem.

Thanks.

-- 
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:
  Triaged

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