Re: Bug#859731: libb64-dev: relocation R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata.str1.8' can not be used
Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org
Control: retitle -1 nmu: libb64_1.2-3
Control: tags -1 stretch
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:49:06PM +0200, Jens Rapp wrote:
> Package: libb64-dev
> Version: 1.2-3
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> a software I currently develop doesn't compile anymore after upgrading from jessie to stretch.
> Here's my compiler output
>
> make
> [ 12%] Built target rocsmq
> [ 16%] Built target rocsmq-daemonizer
> [ 18%] Linking C executable rocsmq-server
> /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/6/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libb64.a(cencode.o): relocation R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata.str1.8' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
> /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/6/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libb64.a(cdecode.o): relocation R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
> /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> rocsmq-server/CMakeFiles/rocsmq-server.dir/build.make:122: die Regel für Ziel „rocsmq-server/rocsmq-server“ scheiterte
> make[2]: *** [rocsmq-server/rocsmq-server] Fehler 1
> CMakeFiles/Makefile2:196: die Regel für Ziel „rocsmq-server/CMakeFiles/rocsmq-server.dir/all“ scheiterte
> make[1]: *** [rocsmq-server/CMakeFiles/rocsmq-server.dir/all] Fehler 2
> Makefile:149: die Regel für Ziel „all“ scheiterte
> make: *** [all] Fehler 2
>...
Thanks for your bug report.
The problem is that the static library needs to be recompiled with gcc
defaulting to PIE, in unstable this already happened with the 1.2-4 upload.
The following should be done for the next stretch point release:
nmu libb64_1.2-3 . ANY . stretch . -m "Recompile with PIE (Closes: #859731)"
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: