Re: openssl-native_1.0.0b.bb do_compile failed

[Roman I Khimov <khimov@altell.ru>]

В сообщении от Вторник 21 декабря 2010 21:55:10 автор Jan Paesmans написал:
> On 12/20/10 22:29, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On (20/12/10 19:45), Jan Paesmans wrote:
> >> I traced the culprit down to the following command using strace:
> >> execve("/usr/bin/ld", ["/usr/bin/ld", "--build-id", "--eh-frame-hdr",
> >> "-m", "elf_x86_64", "--hash-style=gnu", "-shared", "-o", "libgost.so",
> >> "-z", "relro",
> >> "/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crti.o",
> >> "/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtbeginS.o", "-L../..",
> >> "-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5",
> >> "-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5",
> >> "-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib",
> >> "-L/lib/../lib", "-L/usr/lib/../lib",
> >> "-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../..",
> >> "-L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu", "-lcrypto",
> >> "--version-script=openssl.ld", "-Bsymbolic", "-soname=libgost.so",
> >> "--whole-archive", "e_gost_err.o", "gost2001_keyx.o", "gost2001.o",
> >> "gost89.o", "gost94_keyx.o", "gost_ameth.o", "gost_asn1.o",
> >> "gost_crypt.o", "gost_ctl.o", "gost_eng.o", "gosthash.o",
> >> "gost_keywrap.o", "gost_md.o", "gost_params.o", "gost_pmeth.o",
> >> "gost_sign.o", "--no-whole-archive", "-lgcc", "--as-needed", "-lgcc_s",
> >> "--no-as-needed", "-lc", "-lgcc", "--as-needed", "-lgcc_s",
> >> "--no-as-needed", "/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtendS.o",
> >> "/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crtn.o"], [/* 102
> >> vars */]) = 0
> >> 
> >> Seems like this file openssl.ld is needed for the --version-script.
> >> I did a simple test that involved removing the offending linker flag
> >> from the makefile and that did the trick. However it seems to me that
> >> this is a very hackish solution.
> >> 
> >> Any further ideas?
> > 
> > Well removing it may not be a good thing to do. Can you make sure
> > that this ld script exist in the build tree
> 
> Well, seems that the files openssl.ld are created by the debian.patch.
> Any idea why that is applied?

Sane paths, configure targets, etc. Although I've never seen problems like 
yours from 10 minute look it seems that an update is needed for it. For one, 
openssl.ld is still living in 0.9.8 days. I have a 1.0.0c patch almost ready 
for OE.dev, so I'll try to take a closer look at debian.patch when testing it. 
Hope to do it this week.