Home Original page

Bug#950414: binutils-dev: failed to build linux perf (tools/perf) due to missing functions

Matthias Klose doko@debian.org
Mon Feb 3 21:29:00 GMT 2020 
[CCing to binutils]

On 2/3/20 10:03 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
> CCed: Stephen Rothwell
> 
> * Matthias Klose | 2020-02-03 21:10:14 [+0100]:
> 
> Hey Matthias
> 
>> please can you reassign that to the appropriate package? both libopcodes and
>> libbfd have non-public interfaces.  If you use those, please adopt to these.
> 
> I don't get it: `apt-file search /usr/include/bfd.h` results in
> binutils-dev: /usr/include/bfd.h
> 
> On an slightly older bullseye the shipped version of bfd.h building perf works
> like a charm.
> 
> I don't get it why the currently shipped version of bfd.h by
> binutils-dev/bullseye should be fine? bfd.h looks broken now because they
> break API compatibility by silently removing previously defined public
> functions. libbfd-dev is an meta-package and provided by binutils-dev. I don't
> get the correlation to the bug.

binutils doesn't have any comitment to a stable ABI/API for libopcodes and libbfd.

> It seems other people (kernel folks, Stephen) have the identical error as
> well: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/30/1005
> Stephen: or is the bug fixed somewhere else? Do you have an workaround?a

I don't have a work-around. If you rely on binutils internals, you really should
adjust to binutils upstream.
> 
> Thank you Matthias for the quick response!
> 
> Hagen

Matthias
More information about the Binutils mailing list