Opened 11 years ago
Last modified 3 years ago
#43591 assigned defect
binutils conflicts with gdb
Reported by: | cceleri@… | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | 2.2.1 |
Keywords: | Cc: | cooljeanius (Eric Gallager), maehne (Torsten Maehne), MarinosK (Marinos Koutsomichalis), akimd (Akim Demaille), lloda@… | |
Port: | binutils gdb |
Description
Hi,
I installed the gdb port a few days ago and just tried to install the binutils port. Unfortunately, I get the following error:
$ sudo port install binutils Password: ---> Computing dependencies for binutils ---> Fetching archive for binutils ---> Attempting to fetch binutils-2.24_0.darwin_13.x86_64.tbz2 from http://mse.uk.packages.macports.org/sites/packages.macports.org/binutils ---> Attempting to fetch binutils-2.24_0.darwin_13.x86_64.tbz2.rmd160 from http://mse.uk.packages.macports.org/sites/packages.macports.org/binutils ---> Installing binutils @2.24_0 ---> Activating binutils @2.24_0 Error: org.macports.activate for port binutils returned: Image error: /opt/local/include/ansidecl.h is being used by the active gdb port. Please deactivate this port first, or use 'port -f activate binutils' to force the activation. Please see the log file for port binutils for details: /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_tarballs_ports_devel_binutils/binutils/main.log To report a bug, follow the instructions in the guide: http://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets Error: Processing of port binutils failed
I'm not sure if this is a binutils problem or not, but I would like to activate both gdb and binutils if possible.
Change History (14)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to dweber@… |
---|---|
Port: | gdb added |
Summary: | Activating binutils conflicts with activated gdb → binutils conflicts with gdb |
comment:2 follow-up: 8 Changed 11 years ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
While solving this conflict, we should probably also solve some of the conflicts with the cross-gdb ports, such as #39917 and #43098
Also, this is not the exact same conflict, but the issue of gdb running into conflicts has come up recently on the upstream gdb-patches mailing lists: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-07/msg00007.html
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
Owner: | changed from dweber@… to macports-tickets@… |
---|
dweber has retired. See #43834.
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to stuartwesterman@… |
---|
comment:8 follow-up: 14 Changed 10 years ago by stuartwesterman (Stuart Westerman)
Replying to egall@…:
This is because binutils and gdb are both built from source trees that are so similar that they are basically the same. The upstream repository actually combines their names and is just called "binutils-gdb". I have local copies of the binutils and gdb Portfiles in my own local Portfile repo that I had to modify heavily to keep them from conflicting, but I think a better approach for trunk would be to combine them into a single port, or to make one a sub-port of the other.
Yes, can we please do one of these two options?
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
Cc: | marinos@… added |
---|
Has duplicate #48426.
comment:13 Changed 8 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
Owner: | stuartwesterman deleted |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
Replying to stuartwesterman:
Replying to egall@…:
This is because binutils and gdb are both built from source trees that are so similar that they are basically the same. The upstream repository actually combines their names and is just called "binutils-gdb". I have local copies of the binutils and gdb Portfiles in my own local Portfile repo that I had to modify heavily to keep them from conflicting, but I think a better approach for trunk would be to combine them into a single port, or to make one a sub-port of the other.
Yes, can we please do one of these two options?
Given that neither of these have happened in the last 7 years, I'm thinking it might be easier just to mark the conflict for now...
Also, for reference, here are links to my copies of the binutils and gdb Portfiles, if anyone wants to pick up my changes; they have TODOs and FIXMEs left to do in them, though:
This is because binutils and gdb are both built from source trees that are so similar that they are basically the same. The upstream repository actually combines their names and is just called "binutils-gdb". I have local copies of the binutils and gdb Portfiles in my own local Portfile repo that I had to modify heavily to keep them from conflicting, but I think a better approach for trunk would be to combine them into a single port, or to make one a sub-port of the other.