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

Bug#386121: marked as done (libstdc++6: Incompatibility with older libgcc_s.so.1)

Your message dated Sat, 7 Oct 2006 16:09:29 +0200
with message-id <17703.46361.169254.462716@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Bug#386121: libstdc++6: Incompatibility with older libgcc_s.so.1
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)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: libstdc++6
Version: 4.1.1-13
Severity: important


I have problems with version 4.1.1ds1-13 of package libstdc++6 as this
breaks some older applications. If you have the sources, you can
recompile, if not ... what is the suggested solution?

What happens is this:

sbellon@io$ ldd foobar
./foobar: /usr/local/gnat/lib/libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not
found (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)

This looks to me like the new library demands version GCC_4.2.0 from
libgcc_s.so.1, which in my case cannot provide this. How can I get
foobar going with the new libstdc++? I can recompile foobar as I have
the sources to it, but I cannot easily
recompile /usr/local/gnat/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 which foobar depends on
(this is from AdaCore's binary distribution of GNAT).

With the 4.1.1ds1-13, it looks like this:

sbellon@io$ strings /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 | grep ^GCC
GCC_3.3
GCC_4.2.0
GCC_3.0
sbellon@io$ 

With 4.1.1-11 everything was fine:

bellonsn@cube$ strings /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 | grep ^GCC
GCC_3.3
GCC_3.0
bellonsn@cube$

Why was this dependency introduced? Is there any way around it?

In the libgcc_s.so.1 supplied by AdaCore, it looks like this:

bellonsn@cube$ strings /usr/local/gnat/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 | grep ^GCC
GCC_3.0
GCC_3.3
GCC_3.3.1
GCC_3.4
GCC_3.4.2

Is this a change in libstdc++6 that will become necessary in the future
anyway and there's no way round it, or is it a bug in the latest version
of the libstdc++6 package?

Thanks for any hints in advance.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)

Versions of packages libstdc++6 depends on:
ii  gcc-4.1-base                 4.1.1-13    The GNU Compiler Collection (base 
ii  libc6                        2.3.6.ds1-4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libgcc1                      1:4.1.1-13  GCC support library

libstdc++6 recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Stefan Bellon writes:
> Package: libstdc++6
> Version: 4.1.1-13
> Severity: important
> 
> 
> I have problems with version 4.1.1ds1-13 of package libstdc++6 as this
> breaks some older applications. If you have the sources, you can
> recompile, if not ... what is the suggested solution?
> 
> What happens is this:
> 
> sbellon@io$ ldd foobar
> ./foobar: /usr/local/gnat/lib/libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not
> found (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)
> 
> This looks to me like the new library demands version GCC_4.2.0 from
> libgcc_s.so.1, which in my case cannot provide this. How can I get
> foobar going with the new libstdc++? I can recompile foobar as I have
> the sources to it, but I cannot easily
> recompile /usr/local/gnat/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 which foobar depends on
> (this is from AdaCore's binary distribution of GNAT).

Not a bug; you're using a locally installed libgcc_s.so.1 on your
system, which doesn't have this symbol.

Debian's libstdc++6 explicitely depends on libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1-12),
which provides this symbol.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: