Compilation on Linux fails | message "/usr/bin/ld.bfd: cannot find -ludev"

[Ricky-Tigg]

• flashprog v. 1.5
• OS: Linux; Fedora (immutable)

Hello.

Installation of required and optional components

$ sudo dnf install gcc git meson make pkgconf \
{pciutils,libpciaccess,libusb1,libftdi,libjaylink,libgpiod}{,-devel}

Summaries

Since package names vary across BSD and Linux distributions

$ dnf rq --installed --qf '%{name} v. %{version} | %{summary}\n'  \
git meson make gcc pkgconf \
{pciutils,libpciaccess,libusb1,libftdi,libjaylink,libgpiod}{,-devel}
gcc v. 16.1.1 | Various compilers (C, C++, Objective-C, ...)
git v. 2.54.0 | Fast Version Control System
libftdi v. 1.5 | Library to program and control the FTDI USB controller
libftdi-devel v. 1.5 | Header files and static libraries for libftdi
libgpiod v. 2.2.5 | C library and tools for interacting with linux GPIO char device
libgpiod-devel v. 2.2.5 | Development package for libgpiod
libjaylink v. 0.3.0 | Library for SEGGER J-Link and compatible devices
libjaylink-devel v. 0.3.0 | Development files for libjaylink
libpciaccess v. 0.16 | PCI access library
libpciaccess-devel v. 0.16 | PCI access library development package
libusb1 v. 1.0.30 | Library for accessing USB devices
libusb1-devel v. 1.0.30 | Development files for libusb1
make v. 4.4.1 | A GNU tool which simplifies the build process for users
meson v. 1.11.1 | High productivity build system
pciutils v. 3.15.0 | PCI bus related utilities
pciutils-devel v. 3.15.0 | Linux PCI development library
pkgconf v. 2.5.1 | Package compiler and linker metadata toolkit

Compilation

$ make
./util/getversion.sh: line 20: ./util/getrevision.sh: No such file or directory
./util/getversion.sh: line 36: ./util/getrevision.sh: No such file or directory
Replacing all version templates with v1.5.
Building flashprog version v1.5
C compiler found: cc (GCC) 16.1.1 20260515 (Red Hat 16.1.1-2)
Target arch: x86
Target OS: Linux
Target endian: little
Dependency libpci found: yes 3.15.0
  Checking for old "pci_get_dev()": no
  CFLAGS:
  LDFLAGS: -lpci -lresolv
Dependency libusb1 found: yes 1.0.30
  CFLAGS: -I/usr/include/libusb-1.0
  LDFLAGS: -lusb-1.0 -ludev
Dependency libjaylink found: yes 0.3.0
  CFLAGS: -I/usr/include/libusb-1.0
  LDFLAGS: -ljaylink -lusb-1.0 -ludev
Dependency NI-845x found: no
Dependency libftdi1 found: yes 1.5
  Checking for "TYPE_232H" in "enum ftdi_chip_type": yes
  CFLAGS: -I/usr/include/libftdi1 -I/usr/include/libusb-1.0
  LDFLAGS: -lftdi1 -lusb-1.0 -ludev
Dependency libgpiod found: yes 2.2.5
  CFLAGS:
  LDFLAGS: -lgpiod
Checking for header "mtd/mtd-user.h": yes
Checking for header "linux/spi/spidev.h": yes
Checking for header "linux/i2c-dev.h": yes
Checking for header "linux/i2c.h": yes
Checking for header "sys/utsname.h": yes
Checking for function "clock_gettime": yes
Checking for external "librt": yes
cc -o flashprog cli.o cli_config.o cli_wp.o cli_classic.o cli_output.o cli_common.o print.o libflashprog.a -lpci -lresolv -lusb-1.0 -ludev -lftdi1 -lusb-1.0 -ludev -lgpiod -ljaylink -lusb-1.0 -ludev -lrt
/usr/bin/ld.bfd: cannot find -ludev: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/ld.bfd: cannot find -ludev: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/ld.bfd: cannot find -ludev: No such file or directory
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [Makefile:1013: flashprog] Error 1

[i-c-o-n]

Hello Ricky, thanks for your report! It looks like the issue is a combination of a peculiarity of our Makefile and your distro packages.

Modern build systems rely on pkgconfig information. It seems that in your case the pkgconfig information provided by your distro and your distro's package dependencies are not aligned. It says libudev is a dependency of libusb1 (at least for static linking). On my system it looks like this:

$ pkg-config --libs --static libusb-1.0
-lusb-1.0 -ludev

But apparently you don't have a libudev installed. You can check if the dependency is true:

$ ldd /usr/lib64/libusb-1.0.so | grep udev
        libudev.so.1 => /lib64/libudev.so.1 (0x00007f059a577000)

I guess this might actually not be the case for your distro as libudev should have been installed otherwise. If you can confirm that pkgconfig lists the dependency, but ldd does not, please report this to the respective Fedora package maintainer.

Now, our peculiarity: We ask for the --static. This is because of an issue with another operating system. pkgconfig is supposed to help with these cases, but it gives no hint when one has to specify --static and when it's unnecessary (or I maybe missed it). Our Meson setup might cope better with this, so you could try to build with that. Another option could be to correct the pkgconfig info, e.g. edit /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libusb-1.0.pc.

[Ricky-Tigg]

It is we, the users of this program, which as I can conclude, has no contraindications for use on laptops -otherwise would have certainly been stated that the embedded controller present in some laptops might interact badly with any attempts to communicate with the flash chip and may brick those laptops-who should thank you; thank you.

The issue could indeed be tied to my distribution. That makes afterwards the phrase "Compilation on Linux fails" that is part of the title erroneously generic. I shall leave it as such though if it is for you not obviously misleading the reader.

You were able to determine what makes pkgconf information and my distribution's package dependencies not to be aligned.

libudev is a dependency of libusb1 (at least for static linking)

Does that happen to be deduced from that?

$ make
[...]
Dependency libusb1 found: yes 1.0.30
  CFLAGS: -I/usr/include/libusb-1.0
  LDFLAGS: -lusb-1.0 -ludev

'Dependency libusb1' does suggest that libusb1 is as a dependency, though I cannot for sure say of what, but you certainly can.

Can you suggest me-I am not a developer-what might be an issue on Fedora's side so I can report it there.

$ sudo find /usr/lib* -type f -name libusb-1.0*
/usr/lib64/libusb-1.0.so.0.6.0
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libusb-1.0.pc
$ rpm -ql pkgconf | grep ^/usr/bin/
/usr/bin/pkgconf

The counterpart of your pkg-config binary is therefore for me pkgconf.

$ pkgconf --libs --static libusb-1.0
-lusb-1.0 -ludev
$ ldd /usr/lib64/libusb-1.0.so | grep udev
 libudev.so.1 => /lib64/libudev.so.1 (0x00007fe9cd0d4000)

So similarly to your outputs, as I understand, as intended pkgconf and ldd report what you determined as being its dependency; Must I interpret that libudev.so.1 is as a dependency of libusb-1.0.so?

Package providing the libudev library

$ dnf -q provides libudev*
systemd-libs-261.1-2.fc45.x86_64 : systemd libraries
Repo         : @System
Matched From :
Provide      : systemd-libs = 261.1-2.fc45

[i-c-o-n]

Update from my side: I was able to reproduce the issue. It can be worked around by installing the systemd-devel package.

libudev is a dependency of libusb1 (at least for static linking)

Does that happen to be deduced from that?

$ make
[...]
Dependency libusb1 found: yes 1.0.30
  CFLAGS: -I/usr/include/libusb-1.0
  LDFLAGS: -lusb-1.0 -ludev

Yes.

'Dependency libusb1' does suggest that libusb1 is as a dependency, though I cannot for sure say of what, but you certainly can.

libusb1 is a dependency of flashprog, libudev a dependency of libusb. pkgconf is queried for the LDFLAGS (flags to pass to a linker) to link against libusb1. As they contain -ludev, libudev is a dependency.

Can you suggest me-I am not a developer-what might be an issue on Fedora's side so I can report it there.

It's a bit complicated. If they were shipping static libraries (e.g. libusb1.a, libudev.a etc.) what they are doing would be wrong, but they only ship dynamic libraries (*.so), so it's a bit of a grey area. I think it's that libusb1-devel should depend on systemd-devel (which includes libudev things). Or pkgconf --libs --static libusb1 shouldn't report -ludev.

I'm going to work around this issue in our Makefile. So I don't know if there is any benefit in reporting the issue to Fedora.

$ ldd /usr/lib64/libusb-1.0.so | grep udev
 libudev.so.1 => /lib64/libudev.so.1 (0x00007fe9cd0d4000)

So similarly to your outputs, as I understand, as intended pkgconf and ldd report what you determined as being its dependency; Must I interpret that libudev.so.1 is as a dependency of libusb-1.0.so?

Definitely yes. That's what ldd does, it prints dependencies.