On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:22:10PM -0600, Michael Koren wrote: > >> Hi, I don't know if I can reopen this as a normal user, but I can > >> still reproduce this with libc6-dev from etch and binutils from sarge, > > > > that's an unsupported mix. there is a gcc-3.3 in etch, binutils in > >etch, please install this combination. > > I was referring to the problem described by the orignal reporter, i.e., which > gcc-3.3 doesn't matter, but post-sarge binutils doesn't work: > > >Error also goes away if binutils is upgraded from sarge version to version > >currently in unstable. But this upgrade in turn causes problems with > >usage of g++ 3.3, described at > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625. This problem happens > >on Debian if binutils are post-sarge, with any version of g++-3.3 packages. > > > >So at least, dependency on recent binutils should be added. > > > >But it would be much better if compatibility with sarge binutils will be > >preserved in libc6-dev until a workable combination of g++-3.3 and > >post-sarge binutils will be found. Unfortunately, we do have to use > >g++-3.3 ABI here, and I'm sure we are not alone with that. > > I guess this is really a bug in binutils, but it still means this package is > apparently incompatible with g++-3.3 for now, due to a few mysterious name > changes in libc_nonshared.a. That leaves no suitable package in etch, hence > my two questions above. > > Thanks, > Michael > > P.S. Should a copy of this bug be sent to the binutils package?
I think so. Though I thought that gcc-3.3 would be removed in etch, I think it's only here for java :| -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpXWvr0ryS3S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
