Re: gcc 2.95.1-2 and ld
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:44:24PM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > Should i upload the X package i will build, or will the autobuilder
> > take care of it ?
>
> Upload it.
Ok, i will do it. What is the problem with the mach64 stuff ? any relation with
the sparc mach64 stuff recently added to the package ?
> > Also i noticed the following bug too :
> >
> > bahs$ vim
> > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-runtime.c: 67: fixup: Assertion `((reloc->r_info) & 0xff) == 21' failed!
> >
> > Is it the same bug, or should vim be recompiled ?
>
> Same bug for what? The elf32ppclinux bug? Then no, this is another bug.
> Wait some days and if it isn't available recompile it.
i just downloaded the vim source package, and will try building it. I suppose
the binutrils package in experimental is :
binutils_2.9.5.0.10-0.1_powerpc.deb, somewhat older than the current binutils.
Will apt not complain about this and try to upload the package everytime i run
it ? Is the vim bug a binutils bug also ?
> > Also i noticed there are lots of links from binary-powerpc to
> > slink/binary-all instead of to potato/binary-all. Is this correct
> > behavior, or should i fill bugs against the ftp repository ? (one
> > example was (yesterday) text/sgmlpm or something such, it is the perl
> > bindings to sgml.)
>
> Report a bug for this.
Will do it, but first check if it was not solved yet.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: