[CWB] Segmentation fault

[Hardie, Andrew]

>>@Andrew: Removing -static doesn't make a lot of sense for a binary release.  It depends on appropriate dynamic libraries being installed (possibly in the right outdated compatibility version), so if users have to install Debian packages anyway, they might just as well compile from source!

Fair enough. Will scrub.

>> I consider CWB 3.0 unsupported at this point.

Oh thank goodness!

>>@us: We really need to clean up & update the CWB Web page

A lot easier to do if the explanation of 3.0 is no longer needed.

best

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: cwb-bounces at sslmit.unibo.it <cwb-bounces at sslmit.unibo.it> On Behalf Of Stefan Evert
Sent: 02 May 2020 08:49
To: CWBdev Mailing List <cwb at sslmit.unibo.it>
Subject: Re: [CWB] Segmentation fault


Hi everyone,

I would rather assume that some termcap / ncurses stuff has changed so the version statically linked into the CWB 3.0.0 binaries is no longer compatible with the OS kernel interface.  The fact that there's a difference between the static and dynamic ncurses libraries is also a little worrying.  Since this doesn't happen in any other linux flavour, I suspect that the Debian people have messed something up with their backwards compatibility stuff.

@Andrew: Removing -static doesn't make a lot of sense for a binary release.  It depends on appropriate dynamic libraries being installed (possibly in the right outdated compatibility version), so if users have to install Debian packages anyway, they might just as well compile from source!

@the world: I consider CWB 3.0 unsupported at this point.  While we still don't have an official stable 3.5 release, so many problems and issues have been fixed in the meantime (without being backported to the 3.0 branch) that users shouldn't install 3.0 series releases any more.

@us: We really need to clean up & update the CWB Web page …

Best,
Stefan


> On 2 May 2020, at 04:47, Hardie, Andrew <a.hardie at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Trying to create a 3.0.3 binary release has revealed what may be the problem.
>
> With the configuration "site=standard", the build is fine. With the configuration "site=linux-release", the linker fails with the following messages:
>
> ascii-print.c:(.text+0x1e0): undefined reference to `setupterm'
> /usr/bin/ld: ascii-print.c:(.text+0x208): undefined reference to `tigetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: ascii-print.c:(.text+0x242): undefined reference to `tigetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: ascii-print.c:(.text+0x25c): undefined reference to `tigetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: ascii-print.c:(.text+0x276): undefined reference to `tigetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: ascii-print.c:(.text+0x292): undefined reference to `tigetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: ascii-print.o:ascii-print.c:(.text+0x29e): more undefined references to `tigetstr' follow
> /usr/bin/ld: ../editline/libeditline.a(editline.o): in function `readline':
> editline.c:(.text+0x373e): undefined reference to `tgetent'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x375c): undefined reference to `tgetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x3781): undefined reference to `tgetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x3799): undefined reference to `tgetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x37b1): undefined reference to `tgetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x37c9): undefined reference to `tgetstr'
> /usr/bin/ld: ../editline/libeditline.a(editline.o):editline.c:(.text+0x385a): more undefined references to `tgetstr' follow
> /usr/bin/ld: ../editline/libeditline.a(editline.o): in function `readline':
> editline.c:(.text+0x3886): undefined reference to `tgetnum'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x389a): undefined reference to `tgetnum'
> /usr/bin/ld: editline.c:(.text+0x3a1b): undefined reference to `tgetstr'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
>
> The only setting that's different seems to be
>
> SITE_LDFLAGS = -static
>
> ... in the case which failed. So, I have turned that off  that to create a 3.0.3 release, which I will post to the site presently.
>
> (This makes me suspect that something in static vs dynamic linking having changed may be the reason the old binaries segfault in buster. Though if so it would be weird that it does not also affect Ubuntu etc.)
>

_______________________________________________
CWB mailing list
CWB at sslmit.unibo.it
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fliste.sslmit.unibo.it%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcwb&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ca.hardie%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cb83a6f048a3a4f52a91a08d7ee6d4ca2%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C0%7C1%7C637240025527645480&amp;sdata=N2hCmZC2qUTK%2BdZKf94cNiYboKqiw65cmcqvD2%2Fi7Lw%3D&amp;reserved=0