Skip to content

Conversation

@sadguitarius
Copy link

I'm running an unconventional 64-bit setup on Manjaro Arm. Every now and then something breaks compilation, I guess having something to do with compiler toolchains getting out of sync. Recently I've been unable to compile on the develop branch without linking to absl_hash. Is it ok to merge this, assuming it doesn't break anything with the default toolchain?

@sadguitarius
Copy link
Author

ok looks like the check builds are failing so maybe not...

@rdmark
Copy link
Member

rdmark commented Dec 24, 2025

Right, since the library doesn't exist in the CI build environment we get this error:

/usr/lib/gcc-cross/arm-linux-gnueabihf/11/../../../../arm-linux-gnueabihf/bin/ld: cannot find -labsl_hash: No such file or directory

Have you tried passing this linker flag to the build system by the LDLIBS environment variable?

@sadguitarius
Copy link
Author

So LDLIBS doesn't appear to work but LDFLAGS does. Looks like protobuf added an explicit dependency on abseil at some point, so I guess the version used by Ubuntu in the workflow is older than that. Adding the linker flag works for me, so I'll go ahead and close this. It would be easy enough to add the flag for any packaging scripts that needed it as well. Good news is that everything still works with the newer protobuf version!

@rdmark
Copy link
Member

rdmark commented Dec 25, 2025

aha, that explains it

yes, we're currently stuck at a quite old protobuf / protoc version (v3 release series I believe) because we still target Raspbian Bullseye as the baseline platform, and this is the OS that we build our release images for

there are a multitude of technical reasons for being stuck Raspbian Bullseye, all of which can certainly be overcome with some research and effort; happy to break them down for you if you're interested :)

@sadguitarius
Copy link
Author

Oh ok that totally makes sense. It's easy enough to add the flag. I guess if something breaks the protobuf API on distros that use the latest version this could be revisited but it's fine for now.

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.

2 participants