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

Re: Bug#427185: zlib - FTBFS: cannot stat `build-tree/zlib-1.2.3/libz.so.1.2.3': No such file or directory



reassign 427185 gcc-4.1
thanks

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 03:39:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:

> unreproducible; works for me in a current unstable environment.

I've just updated again to current unstable (only portmap and findutils
changed) and can still reproduce the problem:

| broonie@lorien:/tmp$ cat foo.c
| int main(void)
| {
|         return 0;
| }
| broonie@lorien:/tmp$ gcc -m64 -o foo foo.c
| /usr/bin/ld: error in /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.1.3/64/crtend.o(.eh_frame); no .eh_frame_hdr table will be created.
| broonie@lorien:/tmp$ echo $?
| 0

and similarly if I compile to an object and link that.  Reassigning back
to gcc-4.1 since it can be reproduced outside of the zlib build
environment - whatever is going on here doesn't appear to be related to
that package.

Perhaps we have somehow managed to get different versions of some
toolchain packages?  I have:

ii  binutils       2.17cvs2007042 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti
ii  binutils-multi 2.17cvs2007042 Binary utilities that support multi-arch tar

(these are both at 2.17cvs20070426-8.)

ii  gcc-4.1        4.1.2-11       The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.1-multil 4.1.2-11       The GNU C compiler (multilib files)
ii  gcc-multilib   4:4.1.2-2      The GNU C compiler (multilib files)
ii  libc6-dev      2.5-9+b1       GNU C Library: Development Libraries and Hea
ii  libc6-dev-amd6 2.5-9+b1       GNU C Library: 64bit Development Libraries f
ii  libc6-i686     2.5-9+b1       GNU C Library: Shared libraries [i686 optimi

and apt currently claims that none of the packages on that system are
out of date.  I don't know what the buildd that was used for the
original report had.  Removing binutils-multiarch appears to have no
effect on the problem.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: