Bug#317473: marked as done (zlib_1:2.2.2-7 (sparc/unstable): FTBFS: cannot find -lgcc_s for 64-bit build)
Your message dated Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:28 +0200
with message-id <17107.63576.13349.773066@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Bug#317473: zlib_1:2.2.2-7 (sparc/unstable): FTBFS: cannot find -lgcc_s for 64-bit build
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Jul 2005 22:17:53 +0000
>From vorlon@debian.org Fri Jul 08 15:17:53 2005
Return-path: <vorlon@debian.org>
Received: from dsl093-039-086.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net (minbar.dodds.net) [66.93.39.86] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Dr1AP-0003AQ-00; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:17:53 -0700
Received: by minbar.dodds.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id CC0E71005C; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: zlib_1:2.2.2-7 (sparc/unstable): FTBFS: cannot find -lgcc_s for 64-bit build
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:17:52 -0700
Message-Id: <20050708221752.CC0E71005C@minbar.dodds.net>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: zlib
Severity: serious
Justification: no longer builds from source
Since version 1:2.2.2-5, zlib has been failing to build on sparc and
s390. The current build failure on sparc is:
[...]
gcc -m64 -O3 -g -D_REENTRANT -fPIC -DNO_vsnprintf -DUSE_MMAP -DHAS_snprintf -DHAS_vsnprintf -o example example.o -L. libz.a
/usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib/gcc/sparc-linux-gnu/4.0.1/libgcc_s.so when searching for -lgcc_s
/usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib/gcc/sparc-linux-gnu/4.0.1/libgcc_s.so when searching for -lgcc_s
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [example] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/zlib-1.2.2/build-tree/zlib-1.2.2'
make: *** [debian/stampdir/build-64] Error 2
[...]
A full build log can be found at
<http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zlib&ver=1%3A1.2.2-7&arch=sparc&stamp=1120745605&file=log&as=raw>.
These problems began following packaging changes intended to support
biarch on amd64; perhaps something went wrong with that change? It
could also be caused by recent toolchain updates, though; it looks like
there are a couple of biarch packages that are having build problems on
s390 and sparc now, so please reassign to gcc-4.0 if appropriate.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.4.27-2-686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 317473-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jul 2005 17:05:35 +0000
>From doko@cs.tu-berlin.de Tue Jul 12 10:05:35 2005
Return-path: <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DsOCM-0004YD-00; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:05:34 -0700
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (postfix@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28224;
Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:31 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A583FC60;
Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:30 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP
id 16293-49; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:28 +0200 (MEST) 11359
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP;
Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:28 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id j6CH5SOw005616;
Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:28 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17107.63576.13349.773066@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:05:28 +0200
To: Mark Brown <broonie@debian.org>
Cc: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 317473-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#317473: zlib_1:2.2.2-7 (sparc/unstable): FTBFS: cannot find -lgcc_s for 64-bit build
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050709004528.GA15227@projectcolo.org.uk>
References: <20050708221752.CC0E71005C@minbar.dodds.net>
<[🔎] 20050708233304.GB9842@sirena.org.uk>
<[🔎] 20050709004528.GA15227@projectcolo.org.uk>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de
Delivered-To: 317473-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Mark Brown writes:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:33:04AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > get a biarch build of a simple hello world program to build with the
> > compilers I found to try:
>
> > gcc-4.0 -m64 hello.c
>
> > also complains about not being able to find libgcc.
>
> Forgot to mention: I also see equivalent trouble with trying to do 32
> bit builds on amd64.
both issues fixed in 4.0.1-1
Reply to: