Another bug in Intrepid Ubuntu

I was running the '2createpackages' script, running Intrepid Puppy alpha3, building Debian Lenny Puppy packages. Then this error got spat out many times:

BFD: BFD (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.18.93.20081009 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elf.c line 4655 in assign_file_positions_for_non_load_sections

I searched with Google and found this error reported many times, although very odd when I searched the Binutils bugzilla it doesn't seem to have been reported (!!!)

It has been reported for Debian, Fedora and Ubuntu, however it seems that for Debian Lenny they have rolled back to version 2.18.1 (cvs 20080103), which apparently is ok. The Ubuntu people however have not done so, they are using 2.18.93, furthermore their bugzilla shows the bug was reported to them but they took no action.

So, I'll create a PET package, v2.18.1.

Hmmm, the binutils download site does not have that version available. Never mind, I'm downloading the Debian source deb.

Thinking... personally, I might focus on using Debian-Puppy builds in the future. More cautious, more thorough testing, a better base on which to build Puppy I think.


Posted on 24 Mar 2009, 20:09


Comments:

Posted on 24 Mar 2009, 21:23 by BarryK
Uclibc buildroot
Out of curiosity I'm running the uclibc Buildroot system, which compiles a complete Uclibc-based ext2 filesystem in a file, that you can chroot into.

Anyway, I see it has downloaded binutils v2.18, dated 28 Aug 2007, from here:

http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/binutils/

I tried to configure Buildroot to build everything statically, want to see if it will compile binutils statically. Buildroot is using the 2.6.28.4 kernel headers ...I wonder if binutils is sensitive to the kernel version? that is, whether the binutils compiled here will work in other Puppy builds built with different kernels? ...and different versions of libc/gcc ...let's see, Buildroot is using gcc 4.3.2 (same as Debian and Ubuntu, Slackware 12.2 has 4.2.4), and of course the uclibc replacement for libc.



Posted on 24 Mar 2009, 21:42 by BarryK
Re: BFD error
That "BFD" error is nagging at my memory cells... I'm sure that I've seen it before in Puppy4.

I just checked, Puppy4 has binutils version 2.18.50.0.2, from the T2 Project.
...hey, quite a long time ago that the T2 build was done for Puppy4, October 2007!


Posted on 25 Mar 2009, 8:13 by John Biles
Debian over Ubuntu anytime
Hello Barry K,
I agree while Ubuntu has newer Packages then Debian, Debian Packages work more often first go.

Over the last few days I've tried different Distro's on my EeePC. I can't believe the amount of Apps that don't work using Synaptic with Ubuntu installed to my Hard Drive. This isn't good enough. A newbie installing Ubuntu and then finding that the App they installed from Ubuntu's repository is broken, isn't going to get a good first impression. Personally I prefer to use a older working version over a half broken later one.
To many people want the latest and greatest App, ipod, Mobile, Car etc etc because it the New. They believe it must be better then the old version.

So I say go Debian with version 5 it's not that far behind Ubuntu.


Posted on 25 Mar 2009, 8:36 by dogone
Packager perspective
I am reminded that Puppies born of Woof are not limited to the core distro software repositories. They also have access to all Pet repos, official or otherwise, and to the new Woof repository. I'd much prefer to see Puppy based on a stable and reliable core like Debian than to offer reduntant access to even more software. It's vital that Puppy and its PPM "just work". Users not satisfied with the 20K Debian (for example) applicatons have plenty of options.


Posted on 25 Mar 2009, 10:12 by dogone
Packaging synergy
While you've not put the matter up for a vote, it occurs to me that Debian and Arch might make great packaging duo. Debian is known for stability and is the wellspring of Ubuntu. Arch offers the benefits of being a rolling release, independently developed and cutting-edge. Thus, what one doesn't provide, and other might. Round out the mix with Pet and Woof repositories and...


Posted on 25 Mar 2009, 20:03 by BarryK
binutils bugzilla
I've reported the bug to binutils bugzilla:

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10003



Posted on 26 Mar 2009, 7:49 by Raffy
debian build
For the curious, a debian woof (working great) is available here:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=40264



Posted on 27 Mar 2009, 4:18 by happypuppy
dPup...good,but a bit dated
Nice,but dPup is still using the same old 2.6.27.4 kernel.
Where's the 2.6.29 build? ;)


Posted on 27 Mar 2009, 14:55 by BarryK
dpup with 2.6.29
I didn't make it available in Woof, so tronkel couldn't choose it. Actually, 2.6.29-rc7 pet pkg is on ibiblio, in pet_packages-woof directory, but the entry in 'Packages-puppy-woof-official' file in Woof is missing.

However, I do plan to make 2.6.29 available for alpha4, hopefully 2.6.29.1 if they don't take to long to bring it out.



Posted on 27 Mar 2009, 21:02 by happypuppy
Slack Woof with 2.6.29 kernel
@BarryK, Please make a SlackPup with the 2.6.29 kernel.

spup is the most stable,least buggy and best performing flavour of all wooflets I've tried so far (and I've tried them all)

Everything works out of the box just like a normal Puppy.
Unlike dpup and upup,with spup PPPOE works,Xorg works with ATI cards,it feels snappier and I just love installing pkgs from slacky.eu :)

One thing I really miss in spup is the 'trim the fat' option. Slack packages can get HUGE,like the Qt 4.5 pkg!