Your message dated Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:55:03 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1142020: libffi: FTBFS on
armhf,i386,hppa,m68k,sh4,sparc64: (symver)LIBFFI_INT128_8.3 disappeared from
the symbols file
has caused the Debian Bug report #1142020,
regarding libffi: FTBFS on armhf,i386,hppa,m68k,sh4,sparc64:
(symver)LIBFFI_INT128_8.3 disappeared from the symbols file
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1142020: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1142020
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: libffi
Version: 3.7.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
User: [email protected]
Usertags: armhf
User: [email protected]
Usertags: hppa
User: [email protected]
Usertags: m68k
User: [email protected]
Usertags: sh4
User: [email protected]
Usertags: sparc64
User: [email protected]
Usertags: i386
The recent libffi upload didn't build successfully on armhf, i386 and
several -ports architectures. From the buildd log
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libffi&arch=armhf&ver=3.7.1-1&stamp=1783944369&raw=0
and other architectures:
dpkg-gensymbols: error: some symbols or patterns disappeared in the symbols
file: see diff output below
dpkg-gensymbols: warning: debian/libffi8/DEBIAN/symbols does not match
completely debian/libffi8.symbols
--- debian/libffi8.symbols (libffi8_3.7.1-1_armhf)
+++ dpkg-gensymbolsJgDtu7 2026-07-13 12:06:07.296266272 +0000
@@ -5,4 +5,4 @@
(symver)LIBFFI_CLOSURE_8.0 3.4
(symver|arch=!arc !hppa !ia64 !m68k !loong64 !any-mips !any-mipsel
!any-mips64 !nios2 !powerpc !ppc64 !ppc64el !riscv64 !sh4)LIBFFI_COMPLEX_8.0 3.4
(symver|arch=!arc !hppa !ia64 !m68k !nios2 !sh4)LIBFFI_GO_CLOSURE_8.0 3.4
- (symver)LIBFFI_INT128_8.3 3.7
+#MISSING: 3.7.1-1# (symver)LIBFFI_INT128_8.3 3.7
Perhaps this means the affected architectures don't offer an int128
type in their ABIs? They are mostly, but not entirely, 32-bit (sparc64
is 64-bit).
If libffi is expected to need per-architecture symbols file adjustments,
it might be a good idea to do the initial upload of each new upstream
release to experimental, to avoid multiarch skew in unstable?
Thanks,
smcv
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 3.7.1-2
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 23:15:44 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
The recent libffi upload didn't build successfully on armhf, i386 and
several -ports architectures
[...]
+#MISSING: 3.7.1-1# (symver)LIBFFI_INT128_8.3 3.7
Appears to have been fixed by:
libffi (3.7.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* Conditionalize new symbols on architectures.
--- End Message ---
