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

Bug#321435: quagga fails to build on s390 due to gs-gpl bug



Hello

This bug affects my quagga package, too. Do you have a workaround?

bye,

-christian- 

On 2005-10-30 Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 03:44:38PM +0200, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:53:17 +0200
> > From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>
> > To: s390@buildd.debian.org
> > Subject: quagga fails to build on s390 again (tetex bug?)
> > 
> > I have again a misterious build problem on s390:
> >  http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=quagga&ver=0.99.1-7&arch=s390&stamp=1130456712&file=log&as=raw
> > 
> > 	epstopdf --outfile="fig-normal-processing.pdf"
> > 	fig-normal-processing.eps Unrecoverable error: typecheck in
> > 	.getdeviceparams Operand stack:
> > 	    false  --nostringval--  InputAttributes  --nostringval--  0
> > 	--nostringval--  PageSize  --nostringval--  -2048  --nostringval--
> > 	--nostringval--
> > 	make[1]: *** [fig-normal-processing.pdf] Broken pipe
> > 	make[1]: *** Deleting file `fig-normal-processing.pdf'
> > 
> > As I had similar things before that were solved by new tetex-bin and
> > libpng12-0 packages and a recompile and did not change any code between
> > -6 and -7, I think it might be the same problem.
> > 
> > See bug #322821 and the following mailing list entry for reference:
> >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-tetex-maint/2005/09/msg00161.html
> 
> Okay, the failing part is gs coming from gs-gpl.
> 
> I did some checks with recompiles of libpng and gs-gpl, nothing changed.
> Now I decided to try again with gcc-3.4. Rebuild of libpng does not
> change anything, rebuild of gs-gpl "fixed" the problem. Also it is
> "fixed" by a rebuild with -O0 of gs-gpl.
> 
> Because of this, I think it is some sort of undefined behaviour in the
> gs-gpl code or misscompilation.
> 
> I can't check for the problem, as gs-gpl decides to overwrite printf and
> fprintf in an C99 incompatible way, which is a C99 violation anyway.
> 
> Bastian
> 




Reply to: