failure when linking mozilla 0.8.1
hey, i'm not fantastically sure if this is the right place to send this, so feel free to flame accordingly if you think i'm majorly out of place. i've recently tried to compile mozilla 0.8.1 a few times (like 10 or so) on debian sid, and i've run across an interesting bug, of sorts. it compiles fine, but when i go to run it, it tells me that ./mozilla-bin: error while loading shared libraries: /usr/local/src/mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined symbol: fstat now. i know this symbol is in libc_nonshared.a (which is why i've got a good idea that this is NOT the right place to ask this question, being libc related) but it works on redhat 7 and the rawhide gcc (which isn't that much of a consolation prize, as i'm not about to install gcc 2.96, or redhat). a friend has confirmed that it compiles okay on woody, and i've tested with woody's binutils to see if that was the issue, but that didn't help. it looks to me like even tho /usr/lib/libc.so is setup okay, (ie, it contains that weird GROUP line that i've never seen in a .so before :) ) anyway. anyone got any ideas as to what libc or gcc bugs might be causing this as the mozilla people haven't been able to give me a solution appart from "it works in redhat *shrug*, try this unrelated fix" :) thanks Andrew Pilley (ps, if i am emailing to the wrong place, feel free to either tell me where to go, or forward it for me and mention that to me. i have a feeling i should be crossposting to the libc mailing list as well)
Re: failure when linking mozilla 0.8.1
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:58:16PM +1000, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley wrote: > > anyway. anyone got any ideas as to what libc or gcc bugs might be causing this > as the mozilla people haven't been able to give me a solution appart from > "it works in redhat *shrug*, try this unrelated fix" :) > Most likely this is a gcc bug, similar to the one we have been experiencing with atexit. Good thing is, it's fixed with gcc 2.95.3-9 in unstable. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: failure when linking mozilla 0.8.1
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:58:16PM +1000, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley wrote: > > ./mozilla-bin: error while loading shared libraries: > /usr/local/src/mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined symbol: fstat > I see the problem. This is not a gcc bug, nor any other part of the tool chain. When libnspr4 builds, it does so with this line: /usr/bin/ld -shared -soname libplds4.so -o libplds4.so ./plarena.o ./plhash.o ./plvrsion.o -ldl It needs to use gcc to link, or atleast add -lc to the link line. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Problems building -9
Hey... Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just curious...here's the error: make -f debian/rules2 TARGET=arch-% stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-% make[1]: Entering directory `/src/gcc/2.95.3/2.95.3.ds5-9/gcc-2.95-2.95.3.ds5' dh_testversion 2 dh_testdir dh_testroot rm -f debian/tmp ln -sf tmp-arch-% debian/tmp : # Install documentation and changelogs dh_installchangelogs -a -Nprotoize-2.95-arch-% -Nlibstdc++2.10-dev-arch-% \ -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dev-arch-% -Nlibstdc++2.10-dbg-arch-% -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dbg-arch-% -Ngcc-2.95 -Ncpp-2.95 -Ncpp-2.95-doc -Ng++-2.95 -Nprotoize-2.95 -Ngobjc-2.95 -Ng77-2.95 -Ng77-2.95-doc -Nchill-2.95 -Ngcj-2.95 -Nlibstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 -Nlibstdc++2.10-dev -Nlibstdc++2.10-dbg -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-glibc2.2 -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dev -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dbg -Ngcc-2.95-doc -Ngpc-2.95 -Ngpc-2.95-doc dh_installchangelogs: I have no package to build make[1]: *** [stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-%] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/src/gcc/2.95.3/2.95.3.ds5-9/gcc-2.95-2.95.3.ds5' make: *** [stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-%] Error 2
Re: Problems building -9
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds > fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just > curious...here's the error: A quick follow-up... Seems to work fine if I just use the 'binary' target, so the changes to stop packaging the arch: all stuff must've gone wrong (expect a few bugs from autobuilders...). C
Re: Problems building -9
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:51:09PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > > Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds > > fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just > > curious...here's the error: > > A quick follow-up... > > Seems to work fine if I just use the 'binary' target, so the changes to > stop packaging the arch: all stuff must've gone wrong (expect a few bugs > from autobuilders...). I got the same build failure on sparc. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Problems building -9
Christopher C. Chimelis writes: > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > > Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds > > fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just > > curious...here's the error: > > A quick follow-up... > > Seems to work fine if I just use the 'binary' target, so the changes to > stop packaging the arch: all stuff must've gone wrong (expect a few bugs > from autobuilders...). I am trying to build with the following hack. the build finished ok for the target binary-arch. now trying for binary ... --- debian/rules~ Sat Mar 24 21:43:12 2001 +++ debian/rulesThu Mar 29 21:52:13 2001 @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ rm -rf $(srcdir) $(builddir)* rm -rf src src-* build build-* rm -f bootstrap-* first-move-stamp - rm -f debian/*.tmp + rm -f debian/*.tmp debian/rules2.hack dh_clean mail-summary: @@ -65,20 +65,19 @@ $(install_stamp)-%: $(MAKE) -f debian/rules2 TARGET=$* $@ -binary-indep: install $(binary_stamp)-indep-% +binary-indep: install $(binary_stamps) $(MAKE) -f debian/rules2 TARGET=$* $@ -binary-arch: install $(binary_stamp)-arch-% +binary-arch: install binary-arch-hack $(binary_stamps) $(MAKE) -f debian/rules2 TARGET=$* $@ -#binary-arch binary-indep: binary +binary-arch-hack: + echo 'binary_hack = arch' > debian/rules2.hack +binary-indep-hack: + echo 'binary_hack = indep' > debian/rules2.hack binary: install $(binary_stamps) $(binary_stamp)-%: - $(MAKE) -f debian/rules2 TARGET=$* $@ - -foo-%: - echo $(TARGET) / $* $(MAKE) -f debian/rules2 TARGET=$* $@ source diff: --- debian/rules2~ Sat Mar 24 19:18:45 2001 +++ debian/rules2 Thu Mar 29 21:49:40 2001 @@ -1436,10 +1436,19 @@ binary: binary-indep binary-arch +-include debian/rules2.hack +ifeq ($(binary_hack),arch) +$(binary_stamp)-%: $(binary_stamp)-arch-% + touch $(binary_stamp)-$* +else +ifeq ($(binary_hack),indep) +$(binary_stamp)-%: $(binary_stamp)-indep-% + touch $(binary_stamp)-$* +else $(binary_stamp)-%: $(binary_stamp)-indep-% $(binary_stamp)-arch-% touch $(binary_stamp)-$* - - +endif +endif .PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary
gcc-defaults override disparity
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the override file for the following file(s): chill_2.95.3-7_i386.deb: priority is overridden from optional to extra. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please reply to this mail and explain why. -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])
gcc-defaults_0.7_i386.changes INSTALLED
Installing: g77_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g77_2.95.3-7_i386.deb gobjc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gobjc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb cpp_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_2.95.3-7_i386.deb gcc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gcc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb gpc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gpc_2.95.3-7_i386.deb g++_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++_2.95.3-7_i386.deb gcc-defaults_0.7.dsc to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gcc-defaults_0.7.dsc gcc-defaults_0.7.tar.gz to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gcc-defaults_0.7.tar.gz chill_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/chill_2.95.3-7_i386.deb gcj_2.95.3-7_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gcj_2.95.3-7_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Setting bugs to severity fixed: If the override file requires editing, reply to this mail. Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Bug#91940: marked as done (hppa support)
Your message dated Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:53:52 +0200 (MEST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line fixed in gcc-defaults-0.7 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Mar 2001 22:06:23 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 27 16:06:23 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from (chunks.gag.com) [192.133.104.9] (postfix) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14i1ba-0003Lq-00; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:06:22 -0600 Received: by chunks.gag.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E713110568; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:04:55 -0700 (MST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: hppa support Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:04:55 -0700 (MST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gcc-defaults Version: 0.5 Here is the diff to add support for hppa using gcc 3.0... ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE),hppa-linux) V_CPP := 3.0 V_GCC := 3.0 V_GPP := 3.0 V_GOBJC := 3.0 V_G77 := 3.0 V_CHILL := 3.0 V_GCJ := 3.0 V_GPC := 3.0 packages := c++ fortran objc endif Seems to work fine. Bdale --- Received: (at 91940-done) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Mar 2001 21:58:50 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 29 15:58:50 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14ikRL-0003QQ-00; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:58:47 -0600 Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11341 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:53:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA12575; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:53:52 +0200 (MEST) From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:53:52 +0200 (MEST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fixed in gcc-defaults-0.7 X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fixed in gcc-defaults-0.7
Re: building gcc cross compilers
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:32:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> David Schleef writes:
> >
> > What is the status of building cross compilers with the
> > debian source packages? I can get them to build after
> > fighting with it for a while, but it's a bit fragile.
> > It appears as though building cross compilers worked in
> > the recent past, but that changes have been made that break
> > it -- is someone maintaining this, or should I step up
> > to do it?
>
> for gcc-2.95.3, building cross compilers should work ok. You need to
> set the TARGET in the rules files and you are done. You may want to
> contact Steve for further information. The patch for the rules file
> comes from the Emdebian project. Cross compilers are built together
> with the native compiler, so it becomes a problem if you want to build
> many cross compilers.
Do you mean to set TARGETS, not TARGET?
Also, just to check, I find that I need to have the following
installed, in addition to the typical Build-Depends:
binutils-multiarch,
binutils-${target},
{libc6,libc6-dev}-*_${target}.deb, appropriate mangled by dpkg-cross,
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/2.95.3/${target}-linux/include, extracted from
the native ${target} build and hand-installed.
The last seems to be a bit sketchy, but it seems to work. Of
course, if you already have a cross-compiler installed, those
files already exist. Are there any other packages I'm missing?
With this, I seem to be able to get to the point of dh_movefiles
for the cross packages, in which it seems to fail due to expecting
non-versioned package names. More on this later -- I'm rebuilding
because I accidentally blew away the build log.
Is there a known version where the cross building worked, assuming
that I'm not just doing things wrong?
dave...
Bug#92153: gcc-2.95: fails to build
Package: gcc-2.95 Version: 1:2.95.3-9 Severity: serious gcc-2.95 fails to build on at least mips and sparc with: dh_installchangelogs -a -Nprotoize-2.95-arch-% -Nlibstdc++2.10-dev-arch-% \ -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dev-arch-% -Nlibstdc++2.10-dbg-arch-% -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dbg-arch-% -Ngcc-2.95 -Ncpp-2.95 -Ncpp-2.95-doc -Ng++-2.95 -Nprotoize-2.95 -Ngobjc-2.95 -Ng77-2.95 -Ng77-2.95-doc -Nchill-2.95 -Nlibstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 -Nlibstdc++2.10-dev -Nlibstdc++2.10-dbg -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-glibc2.2 -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dev -Nlibg++2.8.1.3-dbg -Ngcc-2.95-doc dh_installchangelogs: I have no package to build make[1]: *** [stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-%] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/buildd/build/gcc-2.95-2.95.3.ds5' make: *** [stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-%] Error 2
