Skip to content

Add missing -dev files#313

Merged
sergio-costas merged 4 commits intoubuntu:gnome-46-2404-sdkfrom
sergio-costas:include-missing-devel-files
Jun 10, 2025
Merged

Add missing -dev files#313
sergio-costas merged 4 commits intoubuntu:gnome-46-2404-sdkfrom
sergio-costas:include-missing-devel-files

Conversation

@sergio-costas
Copy link
Contributor

Some packages are added to the stage, but not their corresponding development packages. This patch fixes this.

Should solve ubuntu/gnome-contacts#9

Some packages are added to the stage, but not their corresponding
development packages. This patch fixes this.
@sergio-costas
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tested with:

cheese
chromium (youtube video)
darktable
eog
epiphany (youtube video)
evince
folio (still fails)
gimp
gnome-characters
gnome-mahjongg
gnome-mines
gnome-recipes
gnome-system-monitor
gnome-text-editor
kicad
shotwell
zoom-client
mattermost-desktop
element-desktop

Copy link
Contributor

@nteodosio nteodosio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's good, but why we are listing both the library without -dev and with -dev, given that the latter depends on the former? Will Snapcraft only stage stuff explictly present in this list?

@sergio-costas
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's good, but why we are listing both the library without -dev and with -dev, given that the latter depends on the former? Will Snapcraft only stage stuff explictly present in this list?

You are right. I'll fix it.

The unneeded packages are those that already install the -dev,
so the "normal" one should not be needed.
Some -dev packages seem to not force installation of the
corresponding library package, so they must be selected manually.
@sergio-costas
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nteodosio @3v1n0 I sorted all the -dev packages and removed the "duplicated ones" (this is, those runtime packages which already had the corresponding devel packages), and the result was several soft links missing. That's why I added the required ones again...

raster ~/workspace/gnome-sdk (include-missing-devel-files)$ diff root.txt upstream.txt 
145a146
> ./lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzo2.so.2
13248a13250,13251
> ./usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
> ./usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/libselinux1.conf
13904a13908,13911
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/krb5
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/krb5/plugins
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/krb5/plugins/preauth
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/krb5/plugins/preauth/spake.so
14085a14093,14094
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libblkid.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libblkid.so.1.1.0
14093a14103,14104
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbrotlicommon.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbrotlicommon.so.1.1.0
14095a14107,14108
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbrotlidec.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbrotlidec.so.1.1.0
14097a14111,14112
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbrotlienc.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbrotlienc.so.1.1.0
14099a14115,14117
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbz2.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbz2.so.1.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbz2.so.1.0.4
14182a14201,14202
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdbus-1.so.3
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdbus-1.so.3.32.4
14232a14253,14254
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdrm.so.2
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdrm.so.2.4.0
14255a14278,14279
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevdev.so.2
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevdev.so.2.3.0
14265a14290,14291
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexpat.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexpat.so.1.9.1
14267a14294,14295
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexpatw.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexpatw.so.1.9.1
14290a14319,14320
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfreetype.so.6
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfreetype.so.6.20.1
14321a14352,14353
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcrypt.so.20
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcrypt.so.20.4.3
14438a14471,14472
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgmp.so.10
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgmp.so.10.5.0
14477a14512,14513
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgpg-error.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgpg-error.so.0.34.0
14808a14845,14846
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libidn2.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libidn2.so.0.4.0
14874a14913,14914
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3
14902a14943,14944
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5.4.5
14937a14980,14981
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmount.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmount.so.1.1.0
15315a15360,15361
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-8.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-8.so.0.11.2
15479a15526,15527
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libseccomp.so.2
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libseccomp.so.2.5.5
15484a15533
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libselinux.so.1
15488a15538
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsepol.so.2
15533a15584,15585
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsqlite3.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6
15559a15612,15613
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0.38.0
15565a15620,15621
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtasn1.so.6
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtasn1.so.6.6.3
15625a15682,15683
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libudev.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libudev.so.1.7.8
16026a16085,16086
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libwrap.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libwrap.so.0.7.6
16129a16190,16191
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxkbcommon.so.0
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxkbcommon.so.0.0.0
16167a16230,16231
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libyaml-0.so.2
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libyaml-0.so.2.0.9
16173a16238,16239
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1.3
31850a31917,31918
> ./usr/share/libgcrypt20
> ./usr/share/libgcrypt20/clean-up-unmanaged-libraries

@nteodosio
Copy link
Contributor

So it look like Snapcraft indeed only considers staging what is in the package list. I'd suggest putting a comment with your findings. But good to go anyways for me.

@sergio-costas
Copy link
Contributor Author

So it look like Snapcraft indeed only considers staging what is in the package list. I'd suggest putting a comment with your findings. But good to go anyways for me.

That's a good point, indeed. Give me a second...

@sergio-costas sergio-costas merged commit c5349a9 into ubuntu:gnome-46-2404-sdk Jun 10, 2025
2 checks passed
@sergio-costas
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nteodosio Ok, I found why... those packages are already in Core24. That's why it doesn't install them.

So... maybe we can remove them without problem.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants