The rebuild of protobuf no longer has lto information according to
objdump, but the reported version certainly does. The "bad" version was
built during hirsute devel, so I took a current hirsute system and
systematically downgraded build-deps to the versions in the log of the
"bad" build. Turns out, the relevant difference is a couple libs from
elfutils: libdw1 and libelf1. If I build protobuf w/ the 0.183-6
versions, I can reproduce the problem. 0.183-8 does not (0.183-7 FTBFS,
so could not be tested).
Strangely the delta between elfutils 0.183-6 and 0.183-8 appears
innocuous - it all looks like packaging cleanup, no changes to upstream
source.
** Also affects: elfutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to protobuf in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1939413
Title:
/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libprotobuf.a’ generated with LTO version
9.2 instead of the expected 11.0
Status in elfutils package in Ubuntu:
New
Status in mozc package in Ubuntu:
Invalid
Status in protobuf package in Ubuntu:
Triaged
Bug description:
When trying to build package mozc for arm64 the following error popped
up:
lto1: fatal error: bytecode stream in file ‘/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-
gnu/libprotobuf.a’ generated with LTO version 9.2 instead of the
expected 11.0
Why does the library contain LTO information at all?
Best regards
Heinrich
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/elfutils/+bug/1939413/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
