Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#39021 closed defect (duplicate)
apple-gcc40 @5494_0 post-installation check is complaining about premature end of file
Reported by: | snowflake (Dave Evans) | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | 2.1.3 |
Keywords: | rev-upgrade | Cc: | |
Port: | apple-gcc40 |
Description
I installed apple-gcc40 via a binary archive from one of the mirrors
http://mse.uk.packages.macports.org/sites/packages.macports.org/apple-gcc40/
I have no reason to suspect the archive as it passed a bzip2 -t check and it also passed the rmd160 signature.
After the installation, port ran a check on the installed files with this result:
---> Cleaning apple-gcc40 ---> Scanning binaries for linking errors: 99.7% Warning: Error parsing file /opt/local/lib/apple-gcc40/lib/gcc/i686-apple-darwin12.2.0/4.0.1/kext/crt3.o: Premature end of data, possibly corrupt file ---> Scanning binaries for linking errors: 99.7% Warning: Error parsing file /opt/local/lib/apple-gcc40/lib/gcc/i686-apple-darwin12.2.0/4.0.1/static/crt3.o: Premature end of data, possibly corrupt file ---> Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
Here's a dump of the crt3.o file from the kext directory:
/opt/local/lib/apple-gcc40/lib/gcc/i686-apple-darwin12.2.0/4.0.1/kext two:kext davidevans$ hexdump -C crt3.o 00000000 ce fa ed fe 07 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 |................| 00000010 01 00 00 00 7c 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 01 00 00 00 |....|.... ......| 00000020 7c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ||...............| 00000030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 98 00 00 00 |................| 00000040 00 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 |................| 00000050 00 00 00 00 5f 5f 74 65 78 74 00 00 00 00 00 00 |....__text......| 00000060 00 00 00 00 5f 5f 54 45 58 54 00 00 00 00 00 00 |....__TEXT......| 00000070 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 98 00 00 00 |................| 00000080 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 |................| * 00000090
This file does indeed seem to be a bit short, but is it correct?
If it is correct, should 'port' be complaining?
Change History (1)
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
Keywords: | rev-upgrade added |
---|---|
Resolution: | → duplicate |
Status: | new → closed |
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
Duplicate of #36996. There’s nothing wrong with that file,
port rev-upgrade
is just misclassifying it as a Mach-O binary.