On 14 May 2007 at 12:35, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
| Package: littler
| Severity: serious
| Version: 0.0.11-1
| Justification: policy violation
| 
| hi, 
| 
| Lucas has rebuild the archive on i386 and your package Failed to Build
| from Source with the following error:
| 
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to 
`_gfortran_concat_string'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to 
`_gfortran_st_write_done'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to 
`_gfortran_transfer_integer'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to `_gfortran_pow_i4_i4'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to `_gfortran_st_write'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to 
`_gfortran_copy_string'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to 
`_gfortran_compare_string'
|  > /usr/lib/R/lib/libRlapack.so: undefined reference to `_gfortran_pow_r8_i4'
|  > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
|  > make[2]: *** [r] Error 1

Odd. I rebuilt it a few times at work / homes in the last few weeks when R
2.5.0 prereleases were coming out. I'll have a look. Obviously something
about the gfortan / g2c libs. 

| the full log can be found here:
| 
|  
http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2007/05/13/littler_0.0.11-1_sid32.buildlog

The log looks strange. This is also odd:

make[2]: Entering directory `/build/user/littler-0.0.11'
cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.    -I/usr/share/R/include -I/usr/share/R/include 
-g -Wall -O2 -c littler.c
littler.c: In function 'init_rand':
littler.c:451: warning: implicit declaration of function 'gettimeofday'
littler.c: In function 'main':
littler.c:611: warning: 'exit_val' may be used uninitialized in this function

I think my R package may be to blame.

Thanks for the report.

Dirk

-- 
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. 
                                                  -- Thomas A. Edison


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to