------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125696
ach mpe mpg de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ach mpe mpg de
------- Additional Comments From ach mpe mpg de 2006-06-22 00:27 -------
Reproduceable in Kubuntu/Dapper and SuSE 10.1.
#6 (Marcus Meisner) #10 (Hubert Fuguiere):
also in Kubuntu/Dapper and debian/sid libghoto2 2.1.6 and 2.2.0 (rebuild debian
pkg in dapper) have both major version 2:
$ l 2.*/usr/lib/libgph*.so.2.*
-rw-r--r-- 1 ach ach 101800 2006-05-10 16:31 2.1.6/usr/lib/libgphoto2.so.2.0.3
-rw-r--r-- 1 ach ach 101696 2006-06-20 00:40 2.2/usr/lib/libgphoto2.so.2.1.0
$ objdump -p 2.*/usr/lib/libgph*.so.2.* | grep SONAME
SONAME libgphoto2.so.2
SONAME libgphoto2.so.2
Gilles and I tried to rebuild digikam with libgphoto2-2 installed.
Still without the 2.2.0's .la files camera list is empty. So it's
a runtime, not a build time problem.
One difference between 2.1.6 and 2.2.0 is that the camera plugins
are
/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.1.6/libgphoto2_<type>.so
and
/usr/lib/libghoto2/2.2.0/<type>.so
respectively.
With strace one gets:
$ strace digikam --detect-camera 2>&1 | grep /usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/adc65.la", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/adc65", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/agfa_cl20.la", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/agfa_cl20", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
...
and for gtkkam instead
allee(130) ~/tmp $ strace gtkam 2>&1 | grep /usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/adc65.la", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/adc65.so", O_RDONLY) = 5
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/agfa_cl20.la", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/usr/lib/libgphoto2/2.2.0/agfa_cl20.so", O_RDONLY) = 5
So while gtkam and digikam use the same libgphoto2
$ ldd /usr/bin/digikam | grep libgphoto
libgphoto2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libgphoto2.so.2 (0xb6565000)
libgphoto2_port.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgphoto2_port.so.0 (0xb653e000)
$ ldd /usr/bin/gtkam | grep libgphoto
libgphoto2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libgphoto2.so.2 (0xb7f0c000)
libgphoto2_port.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgphoto2_port.so.0 (0xb7f05000)
the sequence of files that the apps try to open differ.
digikam: .la, then ""
gtkam: .la, then .so
With the .la files installed digikam tries .la then .so as gtkam does
even without the .la files. [the .la files are in kubuntu and debian
in the pkg libghoto2-2-dev, that's the reason why the hack/workaround
of installing the 2.2.0 devel pkgs fixes a runtime problem]
Both use the same ltdl library:
$ ldd /usr/bin/digikam /usr/bin/gtkam | grep ltdl
libltdl.so.3 => /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3 (0xb62ec000)
libltdl.so.3 => /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3 (0xb761d000)
I've no glue yet what goes wrong. My guess is that somehow KDE seems
to influence the list of extentions and makes digikam/libghoto2 combo
fail to dynamicly load the camera drivers.
coolo ping? ;)
Achim
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
Locked
