Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hi Berto,
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 07:52:51PM +0100, Alberto Garcia wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo I don't think any more info is needed to understand that there is an RC bug. It clearly is an installation failure and it is reproducible. That's all we need whilst we do not understand the precise cause yet. Thus removing the tag. > On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 11:16:10AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Coinstalling binutils-z80 and binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu on an arm64 > > system fails. This is a native, architecture-specific undeclared > > file conflict. > [...] > > I am filing this with binutils-z80, because I > > think that binutils-z80 has no reason to install > > /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ldscripts/stamp and should simply stop > > doing so. > > It looks like /usr/lib/*/ldscripts/stamp is a build artifact (it's an > empty file) and it should not be installed at all, or is it there for > a reason? My earlier message implied that I do not see such a reason either. As such, the two of us have consensus that binutils-z80 should drop the stamp file. > If that file is indeed an artifact then I think it's a bug in the > binutils source code because all other packages are installing it: > > > https://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=contents&keywords=ldscripts%2Fstamp&mode=path&suite=unstable&arch=any I note a subtle difference. For binutils-z80, it is the stamp file in aarch64-linux-gnu whereas other binutils are different: * binutils-or1k -> or1k-elf * binutils-sh-elf -> sh-elf * binutils-xtensa-lx106 -> xtensa-lx106-elf * binutils-bpf -> bpf * binutils-avr -> avr/lib * binutils-arm-none-eabi -> arm-none-eabi To me, it is binutils-z80 that is the outlier and places the z80 ldscripts into the aarch64-linux-gnu directory. Even if this is a binutils-source bug, that would not remove the rc-bugginess from binutils-z80. It may just be necessary to supply a patch for src:binutils to fix binutils-z80. Helmut
