Bug 509935
Summary: | Python fails after upgrade: ELF file OS ABI invalid | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks> |
Component: | binutils | Assignee: | Nick Clifton <nickc> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 10 | CC: | dmalcolm, dvlasenk, ivazqueznet, jakub, james.antill, jan.kratochvil, jonathansteffan, nickc, schwab |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-12-04 12:13:55 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Valdis Kletnieks
2009-07-06 23:39:07 UTC
Confirming - upgrading the box to glibc 2.10.1-2 made Python start working. Only question now is why the RPM managed to escape to rawhide without a 'Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.10)' attached to it like many other recent RPMs have had, so rpm/yum don't install them until glibc has been updated. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 12 development cycle. Changing version to '12'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Thanks for reporting this bug. The build of python-2.6-10.fc12 was: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112979 /usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0 is part of the python-libs subpackage. python-libs-2.6-10.fc12.x86_64.rpm is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1342443 According to that page, that subpackage had these glibc dependencies: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) ...and according to the buildroot page: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpmlist?buildrootID=494333%20&start=50&order=nvr&type=component that rpm was built using: glibc-2.10.90-2.x86_64.rpm I'm not sure what went wrong here; the "ELF file OS ABI invalid" message looks like it came from inside the shared library loader. It may have been a transitional issue with the glibc upgrade. Reassigning to "glibc" in the hope of more insight. EI_OSABI is set by the linker. And correctly so, binaries or shared libraries which use STB_GNU_UNIQUE really are Linux specific and need to be marked so. glibcs before 2.10 won't be able to handle them anyway. The rpms aren't marked with libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.10) req, because they don't use any GLIBC_2.10 symbols. We'd need to invent some completely different req/prov for this (like was done e.g. for DT_GNU_HASH), but that wasn't added and so it is already late to do that. Just don't mix glibc from earlier releases with rpms from a newer one, it is quite easy. |