From: Michael F. <mh...@li...> - 2003-11-18 03:14:51
|
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 07:54, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:21:24AM +0800, Michael Frank wrote: > > > RH 8.091 is RH9 Beta so the same problem likely exists in RH9. > > This looks to be either a beta-only problem, or one you introduced > somehow, because both RH8 and RH9 do not have such a problem... > I removed bfd files ex GNU-gdb and checked binutils-2.13.90.0.18-6 ex RH 8.091 - OK binutils-2.13.90.0.18-9 ex RH 9 - OK On Tuesday 18 November 2003 07:06, William Cohen wrote: > Michael Frank wrote: > > It turned up 2 different header and lib versions. Moved both original RH 8.091 files away to /tmp > > I don't have a RHL 8 machine handy, but on a RHL 9 machine I only see > one bfd.h and one libbfd.a file. > > > It is working now. Thank you very much for your help. > > > > The current bfd.h and libbfd.a files are from gdb-5.3 ex GNU site. > > Why is gdb installing its own bfd.h and libbfd.a? The RHL gdb rpms don't > install bfd.h or libbfd.a. > Is there an expectation that something else will need these files, e.g. > other tools compiled to be compatible with gdb? Is the duplication due > to the installation of gdb-5.3? That gdb is GNU-gdb source tar from GNU site. Why GNU-gdb contains bfd I don't know. Guess it is to be "autonomous" > Could you check where the files came > from with "rpm -qf file"? It seems like alternatively you could get rid > of the bfd.h and libbfd.a intalled by gdb. Problem was caused by having these files installed in both usr/include from RH rpm and /usr/local/include from GNU-gdb Regards Michael |