Bug 435559 - ocaml binaries fail with "No bytecode file specified."
ocaml binaries fail with "No bytecode file specified."
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: ocaml-ocamlnet (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Richard W.M. Jones
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-03-01 12:01 EST by Richard W.M. Jones
Modified: 2008-03-03 16:51 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-03-03 16:51:02 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Richard W.M. Jones 2008-03-01 12:01:21 EST
Description of problem:

Some ocamlnet programs have been stripped.

These programs were originally created with the 'ocamlc -custom'
option which creates an ordinary ELF binary but appends the
bytecode to it in a very ugly way.  Unfortunately if these "binaries"
are stripped then they lose the bytecode and are no longer able to
run.  They fail very characteristically with:

No bytecode file specified.

The programs affected are:

There is a Debian bug report about this:

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

ocaml-ocamlnet 2.2.9-2

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install ocaml-ocamlnet 2.2.9-2
2. Run ocamlrpcgen
Actual results:

Prints "No bytecode file specified."

Expected results:

The program should run, show usage, etc.

Additional info:

I checked all the current ocaml binaries in Fedora and these are
the only two which are affected in this way.

Note that normal bytecode binaries don't have this problem, only
if they were compiled with 'ocamlc -custom' and then stripped.
Comment 1 Richard W.M. Jones 2008-03-03 16:51:02 EST
Fixed in Rawhide:

* Mon Mar  3 2008 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> - 2.2.9-4
- Do not strip binaries (bz 435559).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.