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

Bug#1123012: marked as done (/usr/bin/ld: error; no .sframe will be created)



Your message dated Tue, 16 Dec 2025 22:20:45 +0100
with message-id <aUHNLWvkJGepHl7K@aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#1123012: /usr/bin/ld: error; no .sframe will be created
has caused the Debian Bug report #1123012,
regarding /usr/bin/ld: error; no .sframe will be created
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1123012: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1123012
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.42-5

After upgrading glibc packages from version 2.41-12 to 2.42-5 from unstable, whenever I link a program, I get this warning:
$ arch
x86_64
$ uname -a
Linux wallace 6.12.57+deb13-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.12.57-1 (2025-11-05) x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ gcc hello.c
/usr/bin/ld: error in /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/14/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/Scrt1.o(.sframe); no .sframe will be created

I have several similar systems and I've upgraded libc6 packages on two of them and it happens on both, but not on any other. (The only other package I updated is firefox from unstable, which actually pulled in the libc6 upgrade.)

  -richy.
--
Richard B. Kreckel
<https://in.terlu.de/~kreckel/>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.42-6

On 2025-12-16 00:29, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> Control: fixed 1123012 2.42-6
> 
> The warning went away after upgrading libc6-dev to 2.42-6 and binutils to
> 2.45.50.20251209-1.

Yes, this partial upgrade specific issue was noticed after 2.42-5 got 
uploaded to testing, so the conflict was only added in 2.42-6.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                     http://aurel32.net

--- End Message ---

Reply to: