Summary: | Can't build an X11 environment | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Dave Neuer <mr_fred_smoothie> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo X packagers <x11> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | critical | ||
Priority: | Highest | ||
Version: | 2004.0 | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
/var/log/XFree86.0.log
/var/log/Xorg.0.log emerge info linux .config |
Description
Dave Neuer
2004-05-19 13:05:13 UTC
Created attachment 31719 [details]
/var/log/XFree86.0.log
This is what the re-installed XFree86 complains about when I run startx.
Created attachment 31720 [details]
/var/log/Xorg.0.log
This is the error message from X.org's Xserver, before I hacked the ebuild file
to get rid of the FBDev-related errors.
Created attachment 31772 [details]
emerge info
results of "emerge info"
Created attachment 31773 [details]
linux .config
Linux configuration, kernel 2.6.6
I'm starting to think that the problem rebuild-ing the XF86 server is due to a binutils/gcc bug or issue: I got the 4.3.0-r4 ebuild from gentoo.org CVS, and that build but refuses to start w/ the same double symbol definition error as the -r5 build ("Duplicate symbol __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx in /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a:bitmapmod.o"). The symbol looks like a toolchain-generated one. I recently updated gcc to 3.3.3-r5, the only other change I remember making which could have effected this. I'm updating binutils and trying to emerge xfree again. Will report results. So, no luck with updating binutils. Turns out I'm using gcc-3.3.3-r3 (there is no -r5). Tonight or tommorrow I will look in /usr/tmp/portage and figure out what version of gcc I was using before I updated. I still get the duplicate symbol errors. It turns out that every individual object file that makes up libbitmap.a has __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx defined; 'nm libbitmap.a' shows a line like: 00000000 T __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx for each of them. Could this be as simple as a missing #ifndef in some header file that only broke w/ the new gcc? Anyway, I will keep digging, but as I have no UI hopefully someone there can provide some extra insight soon :-) Also found: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg00173.html while searching Google, and more like it; they all have to do w/ using a non-GNU linker or a broken version of GAS, though. |