First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 164555
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: DUPLICATE of bug 160335
Assigned To: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Brad House <brad@mainstreetsoftworks.com>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 164555 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 164555 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2007-01-30 14:57 0000
emul-linux-x86-compat-1.0-r3 introduced a bug where it does not include
libstdc++.so.5 or libstdc++.so.6  ... v1.0-r2 included those files. 
32bit-binary applications like mozilla-firefox-bin will not run without
libstdc++.so.5


Reproducible: Always

------- Comment #1 From Brad House 2007-01-30 15:07:41 0000 -------
actually, compat should _only_ provide libstdc++.so.5  and not libstdc++.so.6,
since gcc provides the 32bit .so.6:
/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/32/libstdc++.so.6
/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/32/libstdc++.so.6

GCC 3.3 is not installed on most(any?) amd64 systems, so no libstdc++.so.5
exists.

------- Comment #2 From Bernard Cafarelli 2007-01-30 15:16:06 0000 -------
If you do not have a gcc3, sync and re-emerge emul-linux-x86-compat-1.0-r3

It was first released without a test for gcc 3.x availability on your system,
which caused libstdc++.so.5 never to be installed.

------- Comment #3 From Doug Goldstein 2007-01-30 15:29:27 0000 -------
emerge --sync && re-emerge

------- Comment #4 From Brad House 2007-01-30 15:49:17 0000 -------
I assume it was _just_ committed and hasn't hit the rsync mirrors yet ...

------- Comment #5 From Brad House 2007-01-30 15:55:40 0000 -------
Shouldn't:

        if has_version =sys-devel/gcc-3.4*; then

be:

        if has_version =sys-devel/gcc-3.3*; then

in the ebuild?
GCC 3.4 doesn't provide libstdc++.so.5, but GCC 3.3 does, I have gcc-3.4.6-r2
installed, and it sure isn't there:
[ebuild   R   ] sys-devel/gcc-3.4.6-r2  USE="gtk nls (-altivec) -bootstrap
-boundschecking -build -doc -fortran* -gcj (-hardened) -ip28 -ip32r10k
(-multilib) -multislot (-n32) (-n64) -nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -test -vanilla"
63 kB

# ls -l /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/32/
total 5032
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root    1636 Oct 24 14:23 crtbegin.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root    2160 Oct 24 14:23 crtbeginS.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root    1960 Oct 24 14:23 crtbeginT.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root    1324 Oct 24 14:23 crtend.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root    1520 Oct 24 14:23 crtendS.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root    1154 Oct 24 14:23 libfrtbegin.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  350490 Oct 24 14:23 libg2c.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root     759 Oct 24 14:23 libg2c.la
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root      15 Oct 24 14:23 libg2c.so -> libg2c.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root      15 Oct 24 14:23 libg2c.so.0 -> libg2c.so.0.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  124792 Oct 24 14:23 libg2c.so.0.0.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   58268 Oct 24 14:23 libgcc.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   30846 Oct 24 14:23 libgcc_eh.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   34760 Oct 24 14:23 libgcc_s.so.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root      13 Oct 24 14:23 libgcc_s_32.so -> libgcc_s.so.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   13220 Oct 24 14:23 libgcov.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1694032 Oct 24 14:23 libstdc++.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root    1011 Oct 24 14:23 libstdc++.la
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root      18 Oct 24 14:23 libstdc++.so -> libstdc++.so.6.0.3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root      18 Oct 24 14:23 libstdc++.so.6 ->
libstdc++.so.6.0.3
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  825776 Oct 24 14:23 libstdc++.so.6.0.3
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1782914 Oct 24 14:23 libstdc++_pic.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  148588 Oct 24 14:23 libsupc++.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root     951 Oct 24 14:23 libsupc++.la

------- Comment #6 From Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2007-01-30 18:16:17 0000 -------

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 160335 ***

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug