* Bug in SE-coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1 ?
@ 2004-08-11 15:03 Wolfgang Pfeiffer
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Wolfgang Pfeiffer @ 2004-08-11 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell Coker, SE-Linux; +Cc: Toni Timonen
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4776 bytes --]
Hi All
I tried to compile coreutils with selinux support:
It only worked after applying the coreutils-ftbfs.patch
from
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=259282
---> Toni Timonen:
Thanks for this patch: You definitely saved my day, as it seems. ....
:) <---
The whole issue might be one of the "wrong" automake version: IIRC the
build that failed in the following used automake 1.8, whereas automake
1.7 seems to be used after applying Toni's patch, IINM .... But this is
a wild guess, without really knowing what's going on ... (I did't make
logs for the builds this time)
Details:
$ ls -l `which gcc`
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Aug 11 14:24 /usr/bin/gcc -> gcc-3.3
Building a default Debian coreutils successfully
# apt-get build-dep coreutils
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 159 not upgraded.
apt-get source coreutils
cd coreutils-5.2.1
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
The above happily ends with these binaries:
coreutils_5.2.1-2_powerpc.deb
fileutils_5.2.1-2_all.deb
shellutils_5.2.1-2_all.deb
textutils_5.2.1-2_all.deb
Failed build of SE-coreutils:
I then tried to build the packages above with selinux support:
apt-get source coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1
cd coreutils-5.0.91/
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
Result: No binaries, but this error at the end of the build:
----------------------------------------------------------------
then mv -f ".deps/tail.Tpo" ".deps/tail.Po"; else rm -f ".deps/tail.Tpo"; exit 1; fi
powerpc-linux-gcc -g -DSYSLOG_SUCCESS -DSYSLOG_FAILURE -DSYSLOG_NON_ROOT -O2 -o tail tail.o ../lib/libfetish.a ../lib/libfetish.a -lm -lrt none required
powerpc-linux-gcc: none: No such file or directory
powerpc-linux-gcc: required: No such file or directory
make[4]: *** [tail] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91/src'
make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91/src'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/shorty/coreut-default/coreutils-5.0.91/build-tree/coreutils-5.0.91'
make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Happy End:
For this build I didn't download the SE-sources for the package again:
I simply deleted anything but
coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1.diff.gz
coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1.dsc
coreutils_5.0.91.orig.tar.gz
in the dir and then did a
apt-get source coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1
to unpack the source, as I hope ...
cd coreutils-5.0.91/
cp /home/shorty/uploads/coreutils-ftbfs.patch .
$ patch -p1 < coreutils-ftbfs.patch
patching file debian/rules
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
then ended with these packages:
coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_powerpc.deb
fileutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_all.deb
shellutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_all.deb
textutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1_all.deb
So what is this?
1. Was it my mistake when the unpatched build in "Failed build of
SE-coreutils" above didn't work?
2. Is the necessity to apply the coreutils-ftbfs.patch for a
successful SE-coreutils build only one that applies to ppc? Or
are there others with the same, or similar, error on different
hardware?
3. Is it a bad idea to patch the source in coreutils proper so
people do not have the hassle of having to find out the cause of
the build error I had? If not I'd simply offer the
coreutils-ftbfs.patch on my download dir on
<http://home.t-online.de/home/520050060325-0001/> ?
4. Or is the whole coreutils_5.0.91-2.new.se1 so dated that it's
better to not offer it for downloading and installing it?
Thanks in anticipation.
Best Regards
Wolfgang
PS:
I tried my best to paste the commands I entered plus the output
resulting as correct as possible to this message: Please let me know if
you find inconsistencies in the above, as I'm not always sure what my
MUA ("Ximian Evolution") really is doing with every keystroke I'm
typing ...
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-ben1
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages coreutils depends on:
pi libacl1 2.2.23-1 Access control list shared library
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-15 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
--
Profile, links: http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer
[-- Attachment #2: coreutils-ftbfs.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 377 bytes --]
diff -u coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules
--- coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules
+++ coreutils-5.0.91/debian/rules
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
configure-stamp: $(patched)
dh_testdir
- cd $(BUILD_TREE) && aclocal -I m4 && autoconf
+ cd $(BUILD_TREE) && aclocal-1.7 -I m4 && autoconf
cd $(BUILD_TREE) && CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS) \
LDFLAGS=$(LDFLAGS) ./configure \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2004-08-11 15:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-08-11 15:03 Bug in SE-coreutils=5.0.91-2.new.se1 ? Wolfgang Pfeiffer
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.