Bug#617482: buildd.emdebian.org: gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi fails to install
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: Bug#617482: buildd.emdebian.org: gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi fails to install
- From: "P. J. McDermott" <pjm@nac.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:30:20 -0500
- Message-id: <20110310083020.4823.19994.reportbug@alsvid1>
- Reply-to: "P. J. McDermott" <pjm@nac.net>, 617482@bugs.debian.org
Package: buildd.emdebian.org
Severity: important
I tried to install gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi on my Debian squeeze GNU/Linux
system, but apt-get/dpkg failed as follows:
> Unpacking gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi (from
> .../gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi_7.0.1-2_i386.deb) ...
> dpkg: error processing
> /var/cache/apt/archives/gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi_7.0.1-2_i386.deb
> (--unpack):
> trying to overwrite '/usr/share/gdb/syscalls/amd64-linux.xml', which is
> also in package gdb 7.0.1-2+b1
> configured to not write apport reports
> dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed
> by signal 1 (Broken pipe)
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> /var/cache/apt/archives/gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi_7.0.1-2_i386.deb
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
This raises a question in my mind. Does GDB built for ARMEL simulation even
need system call information for non-ARM architectures, or can those be
patched out? Or can those files be moved (to /usr/share/gdb-arm/, for
example) in the gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi package?
I realize that as a workaround I can overwrite those syscall files to
get gdb-arm-linux-gnueabi installed, but I'm trying to put together an
easy tutorial for fellow students in a course doing ARM assembly
programming. Luckily, Emdebian's toolchains make cross-development easy
on Debian and Debian-based systems, but easy debugging would be great
too.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (700, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Reply to: