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

Bug#477207: javac fails when run on an i386 Debian with amd64 Linux



Package: java-gcj-compat-dev
Version: 1.0.65-10

	javac fails when run on an i386 Debian if the kernel is compiled
	for amd64:

$ /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/javac obj/Test.java 
----------
1. ERROR in obj/Test.java (at line 1)
	/* #line 22113 "configure" */
	^
The type java.lang.Object cannot be resolved. It is indirectly referenced from required .class files
----------
1 problem (1 error)

	Comparison of `strace's for i386 and amd64 Debian has revealed
	the following suspicious syscall run on i386 Debian:

access("/usr/lib32/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-4.1-1.4.2.0/jre", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT

	Apparently, javac deduces the path to its libraries from the
	platform the kernel was built for:

$ uname -m 
x86_64
$ 

	However, the actual architecture of the system (which should be
	taken into account) is different:

$ dpkg-architecture 
DEB_BUILD_ARCH=i386
DEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS=linux
DEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU=i386
DEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU=i486
DEB_BUILD_GNU_SYSTEM=linux-gnu
DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE=i486-linux-gnu
DEB_HOST_ARCH=i386
DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS=linux
DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU=i386
DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU=i486
DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM=linux-gnu
DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE=i486-linux-gnu
$ 

	This effectively prevents one from building the software
	`Build-Depend'ing on `java-gcj-compat-dev' for i386 on hosts
	running Linux built for amd64.

	The problem was observed when running `pbuilder' with a
	`base.tgz' containing i386 port of Debian etch on an otherwise
	Debian amd64 host:

# uname -m 
x86_64
# pbuilder create \
      --basetgz /var/cache/pbuilder/base-i386.tgz \
      --debootstrap debootstrap \
      --debootstrapopts --arch --debootstrapopts i386 \
      --distribution etch \
      --mirror http://local-debian-mirror/ 
...
# LC_ALL=C nohup /usr/bin/time pbuilder build \
      --basetgz /var/cache/pbuilder/base-i386.tgz \
      .../ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/db4.5/db4.5_4.5.20-11.dsc & 
... fails to build...
# 




Reply to: