Re: Upload and Blog-Post
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 07:12:41PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:56 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 01:20:58AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > I've uploaded an rc2 to experimental. I hope I can find some time
> > > this week to do a full run with it. I really would like to avoid
> > > having to do a 2.0.1 directly after 2.0.0. It's just numbers, but
> > > anyway ;)
> >
> > I've started the full run yesterday. I patched reporting/harness to
> > include the STDERR output in the lintian.log, let's see whether that
> > helps us to track down the readelf problems.
>
> Having got an etch chroot set up on my laptop (an i386) I've managed to
> reproduce the problem. At base, each of the affected binaries is
> returning "invalid operation" from objdump, and etch's readelf does not
> deal well with attempting to parse the binary.
>
> This appears to be fairly simply fixable by only using readelf if the
> error returned by objdump was "File format not recognized", which
> accounts for all the 64-bit false positives which the readelf code was
> developed to address.
>
> The attached patch modifies the collector script as above and works in
> my testing. I haven't committed it yet as I want to test it with a few
> more packages (and in case anyone had any comments on the approach).
>
> The script could use some work on parts of the code structure, but
> they're not imperative and I've left them for now to produce a saner
> diff.
I wonder if it would make sense to move the
if (open(PIPE, '-|', "objdump --headers --private-headers -T $bin 2>&1"))
one level up since both branches using it seem to do very
similar things and move the check for the binutils version on level
down instead.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: