Bug#630417: failed sparc/powerpc build of libidn 1.22-1
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> reassign 630417 libgcj-bc 1.106
> affects 630417 + gcj-4.6-jdk
> found 630417 gcc-defaults/1.96
> fixed 630417 gcc-defaults/1.107
> quit
> (pruning cc list)
>
> Hi,
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Ok, so possibly #630417 does not fix the problem? I'm cc'ing the bug
>> for further help with debugging. As far as I can tell, the powerpc
>> buildd is using gcj 4.6.0-13 (i.e., later than 4.6.0-6) and is still
>> experiencing the problem explained in the #630417 bug report. Complete
>> log is available here:
>>
>> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=libidn&arch=powerpc&ver=1.22-1&stamp=1308562221&file=log
>
> I experienced something similar trying to build subversion on an
> amd64 machine:
>
> $ /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/javac -target 1.5 -source 1.5 \
> -d subversion/bindings/javahl/classes \
> -classpath subversion/bindings/javahl/classes:\
> subversion/bindings/javahl/src:\
> /usr/share/java/junit.jar \
> subversion/bindings/javahl/src/org/apache/subversion/javahl/ClientException.java \
> subversion/bindings/javahl/src/org/apache/subversion/javahl/ClientNotifyInformation.java \
> [... etc ...]
> subversion/bindings/javahl/src/org/apache/subversion/javahl/types/Version.java
> /usr/bin/ecj-gcj: error while loading shared libraries: libgcj_bc.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> make[1]: *** [subversion/bindings/javahl/classes/org/apache/subversion/javahl/ClientException.class] Error 127
>
> Upgrading libgcj-bc to 4.6.1-2 fixes it.
>
> (By the way, libgcj-bc's documentation directory is a symlink to
> libgcj-common but the versioned dependency libgcj-bc -> libgcj-common
> is not very strict, making it hard to dig up a changelog. Would it
> be possible to make that dependency use "=" or to give libgcj-bc its
> own documentation directory?)
Did you see this recently? I just uploaded libidn-1.22-2 which happened
to be built correctly on both sparc and powerpc. So it seems this issue
is gone again? At least on the buildd's.
/Simon
Reply to: