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

Bug#951946: marked as done (intel-gpu-tools: FTBFS: ld: final link failed: bad value)

Your message dated Sun, 05 Apr 2020 00:53:55 -0700
with message-id <158607323564.525509.2708604400329704856@localhost>
and subject line fixed
has caused the Debian Bug report #951946,
regarding intel-gpu-tools: FTBFS: ld: final link failed: bad value
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

951946: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=951946
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: intel-gpu-tools
Version: 1.24-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: buster sid
Usertags: ftbfs-20200222 ftbfs-buster


During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.

Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libprocps.a(readproc.o): relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against symbol `stderr@@GLIBC_2.2.5' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
> /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: bad value
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

The full build log is available from:

A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at
http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute!

About the archive rebuild: The rebuild was done on EC2 VM instances from
Amazon Web Services, using a clean, minimal and up-to-date chroot. Every
failed build was retried once to eliminate random failures.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.25-2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: