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

Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Joel Soete wrote:
> ---------- Initial header -----------

> >From      : "Randolph Chung" randolph@tausq.org
> To          : "John David Anglin" dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca
> CC          :
> doko@cs.tu-berlin.de,schizo@debian.org,carlos@baldric.uwo.ca,321785@bugs.debian.org,debian-hppa@lists.debian.org,glibc@packages.debian.org
> Date      : Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:53:08 +0800
> Subject : Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]

> > >>Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into
> > >>__cffc, which should not happen...
> > >
> > >
> > > Is -2 a special signal number?
> >
> > I don't think so. in any case, others have observed that if they use an
> > older glibc, this problem does not happen.

> > randolph

> Hello all,

> Which kernel was it?

The buildd in question is currently running a 2.4.26-64 kernel.

> In fact while simply rebuilding a kernel (as root, without fakeroot), I also
> observe a segfault with 2.6.8 and 2.6.10 (on c110 and d380) but panicing
> 2.6.12 (on the same c110 and d380) as well as 2.6.13-rc6 on d380 and b2k.

> Fwiw with kernel, the rebuild runs fine on this same d380 and b2k.

Well, there have certainly been various and sundry known kernel issues on
hppa, but this seems wholly unrelated to them.

> That's confusing me: is there actualy a pb in libc or do we need some
> constraint to install this new libc?

glibc seems to be the one thing that's changed; running make manually with
a copy of glibc 2.3.2 in the chroot works just fine.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                  to set it on, and I will move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: