[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: List of FTBFS in Ubuntu

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:27:44AM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote on 2010-12-03 10:36:
> > No, sorry. I must admit that I didn't spend any time investigating the
> > failures. However, my irssi backlog says the two major changes in Ubuntu
> > that could cause failures are:
> > - --as-needed is now used by default by the linker
> > - python2.7
> Many packages (e.g. xfe, xfce-*) fails with 
> "[LD_ERROR] ...: could not read symbols: Invalid operation"
> I know that the Xfe package fails because Ubuntu use:
> "-Bsymbolic-functions"  by default by the linker.
> The reasons for the problems are redefinitions of some library functions 
> in the package. See:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xfe/+bug/644645
> Unfortunately I don't know any workaround. All upstreams ought to rewrite
> many parts of the source code to work with this default linker config.

So you're saying Ubuntu is using -Bsymbolic* *by default*?

If so, that's even more retarded than their recent decision to
enable -Wl,--as-needed by default, and that was a really bad decision
by itself.  -Bsymbolic breaks most of the advantages of ELF, since it
prevents LD_PRELOAD and hides things from the global symbol namespace,
even duplicating global stuff so you get bizarre and broken program
behaviour, as you're seeing here...


Upstreams should not need to rewrite their sources to work with
Ubuntu's broken toolchain.  Overriding symbols in other libraries is
perfectly legitimate practice; that's the whole reason we have
vauge/weak linkage and single instances of C++ typeinfo objects (for
example).  -Bsymbolic* breaks this.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: