Cyril Brulebois <email@example.com> (2014-08-19): > Package: debian-installer > Version: 20140802 > Severity: serious > Justification: FTBFS > > Hi, > > I've noticed what $Subject says through the daily builds. Looking at > last successful build and today's (failing) one, a few things pops up: > | -Unpacking libdebian-installer4-udeb (0.94) ... > | +Unpacking libdebian-installer4-udeb (0.95) ... > → addition of ppc64el support, not likely to be an issue > > | -Unpacking zlib1g-udeb (1:1.2.8.dfsg-1) ... > | +Unpacking zlib1g-udeb (1:1.2.8.dfsg-2) ... > → irrelevant changes AFAICT > > In the library reduction passes: > | -1052 symbols, 637 unresolved > | +1051 symbols, 636 unresolved > […] > | -reducing libgcc_s.so.1 > | -No pic file found for /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf//libgcc_s.so.1 ; copying > […] > | -Object: ./tmp/network-console/tree/lib/libgcc_s.so.1-so-stripped > […] > | +1170 symbols, 38 unresolved > | +Traceback (most recent call last): > | + File "/usr/bin/mklibs", line 560, in <module> > | + raise Exception("No library provides non-weak %s" % name) > | +Exception: No library provides non-weak __aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0 > > libgcc_s.so.1 comes from a gcc package, and there's been a gcc-4.9 > package in unstable for 2 days, which might match. But then I don't > see any difference in package contents or symbols list for the > libgcc1 packages between 1:4.9.1-5 and 1:4.9.1-7. I'm afraid I'm > running out of the time to dig deeper into what's mklibs is after > (possibly a _pic.a but I don't see any for libgcc_s). Having both > a glibc and a gcc-4.9 upload in the said time window could explain > this regression, as a wild guess. > > Could somebody from debian-arm@ (x-d-cc) check what's going on > precisely and possibly forward the failure to the right place if > d-i isn't the buggy package here? Friendly ping. :) Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature