Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> (2014-08-19):
> Package: debian-installer
> Version: 20140802
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS
>
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed what $Subject says through the daily builds. Looking at
> last successful build and today's (failing) one, a few things pops up:
> | -Unpacking libdebian-installer4-udeb (0.94) ...
> | +Unpacking libdebian-installer4-udeb (0.95) ...
> → addition of ppc64el support, not likely to be an issue
>
> | -Unpacking zlib1g-udeb (1:1.2.8.dfsg-1) ...
> | +Unpacking zlib1g-udeb (1:1.2.8.dfsg-2) ...
> → irrelevant changes AFAICT
>
> In the library reduction passes:
> | -1052 symbols, 637 unresolved
> | +1051 symbols, 636 unresolved
> […]
> | -reducing libgcc_s.so.1
> | -No pic file found for /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf//libgcc_s.so.1 ; copying
> […]
> | -Object: ./tmp/network-console/tree/lib/libgcc_s.so.1-so-stripped
> […]
> | +1170 symbols, 38 unresolved
> | +Traceback (most recent call last):
> | + File "/usr/bin/mklibs", line 560, in <module>
> | + raise Exception("No library provides non-weak %s" % name)
> | +Exception: No library provides non-weak __aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0
>
> libgcc_s.so.1 comes from a gcc package, and there's been a gcc-4.9
> package in unstable for 2 days, which might match. But then I don't
> see any difference in package contents or symbols list for the
> libgcc1 packages between 1:4.9.1-5 and 1:4.9.1-7. I'm afraid I'm
> running out of the time to dig deeper into what's mklibs is after
> (possibly a _pic.a but I don't see any for libgcc_s). Having both
> a glibc and a gcc-4.9 upload in the said time window could explain
> this regression, as a wild guess.
>
> Could somebody from debian-arm@ (x-d-cc) check what's going on
> precisely and possibly forward the failure to the right place if
> d-i isn't the buggy package here?Friendly ping. :) Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
