Debian Bug report logs - #149045
binutils: debconf message cut off midsentence

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Heather Stern <star@starshine.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Cc: star@starshine.org

Subject: binutils: debconf message cut off midsentence

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:18:42 -0700

Package: binutils
Version: 2.12.90.0.1-4

As found in debian/testing.

* The exact and complete text of any error messages printed or logged.

Well, a dpkg-reconfigure of the package produces the message correctly:

(but doesn't cut-n-paste well due to the line draws)

Kernel link failure info

You may experience problems linking older (and some newer) kernels with
this version of binutils.  This is not because of a bug in the linker,
but rather a bug in the kernel source.  This is being worked out and
fixed by the upstream kernel group in newer kernels, but not all of the
problems may have been fixed at this time.  Older kernel versions will
almost always exhibit the problem, however, and no attempts are being
made to fix those that we know of.

There are a few work-arounds, but the most reliable is to edit the
linker script for your architecture (e.g. arch/i386/vmlinux.lds) and
remove the '*(.text.exit)' entry from the 'DISCARD' line.  It will
bloat the kernel somewhat, but it should link properly.

			[OK]

* Exactly what you typed or did to demonstrate the problem.

apt-get dist-upgrade

* A description of the incorrect behaviour: 
  - exactly what behaviour you were expecting,
  - and what you observed.
  - A transcript of an example session is a good way of showing this.

this message showed with one or more lines chopped off, then the OK
button.  No scroll bar either.  It looked weird and I added it to my notes
as something to mention.  Sorry I didn't think to capture which line it 
fell off at :(  but I can probably reproduce it, since I have a minideb 
kit I put this together from.

* A suggested fix, or even a patch, if you have one.

Is there something telling the OK box how big to be?  maybe it is being
told to make it too small (unlikely, then wouldn't it be dumb every time?), 
or inheriting from another dialog during dist-upgrade.

I can't tell what order it tried to upgrade in, so if it's inheritance I
cannot tell what "leaked".

* Details of the configuration of the program with the problem.
  Include the complete text of its configuration files.

standard potato setup from last time I composed my "mini debian kit", 
upgrading to pure testing.

* The versions of any packages on which the buggy package depends.

debconf 1.0.32 in testing
shellutils 2.0.11-11

(because I'm using the dialog box version:
whiptail 0.50.17-9.6)

* Environment...
  - What kernel version you're using (type uname -a),
  - your shared C library
    (type ls -l /lib/libc.so.6 or dpkg -s libc6 | grep ^Version),
  - and any other details about your Debian system, if it seems appropriate.

kernel: 2.4.19 pre3 locally built.  (because it's a chroot environment
on an odd motherboard)  a debian package 2.2.18pre21 and its associated pcmcia
modules are present for direct use.

libc: 2.2.5-6

* Appropriate details of the hardware in your system. If you're
  reporting a problem with a device driver please list all the
  hardware in your system, as problems are often caused by IRQ and
  I/O address conflicts.

Not a hardware issue, I suspect.

* Include any detail that seems relevant

This is part of my personal project to keep a "superbase" with me for fast
system setups.  As woody approaches release I figured I'd better file anything
odd I saw as a bug...

I find whiptail annoying and the sooner it can be completely replaced forever
with dialog, the better.  Other apps in my kit insisted on the darn thing, 
though, and it was part of Base.

Of course that didn't stop me from throwing ae out the porthole with a lead
weight attached, either... 

Message #10 received at 149045@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Christopher C. Chimelis" <chris@debian.org>

To: Heather Stern <star@starshine.org>, 149045@bugs.debian.org

Cc: binutils@packages.qa.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#149045: binutils: debconf message cut off midsentence

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:30:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Heather Stern wrote:

> As found in debian/testing.
> 
> * The exact and complete text of any error messages printed or logged.
> 
> Well, a dpkg-reconfigure of the package produces the message correctly:

Which debconf front-end exhibits this?  I'm wondering if this is isolated
to the dialog front-end (since I haven't seen it and don't use that
front-end on most of my machines).

> this message showed with one or more lines chopped off, then the OK
> button.  No scroll bar either.  It looked weird and I added it to my notes
> as something to mention.  Sorry I didn't think to capture which line it 
> fell off at :(  but I can probably reproduce it, since I have a minideb 
> kit I put this together from.

Hmmm...if you can test this with other frontends, it would be
appreciated.  I'm guessing that the message is too long anyway, which I
can work on, but it may be a bit too late for inclusion in testing,
unfortunately.

> * A suggested fix, or even a patch, if you have one.

Not yet :-(  I can shorten the message, but I'd rather not.  If this
proves to be a bug in debconf, though, I'd be happy to forward it through
to the debconf maintainers.  From the docs so far, I haven't found a way
to force a scrollbar, so this may well be a debconf problem (and may be
limited to a specific front-end).

> Is there something telling the OK box how big to be?  maybe it is being
> told to make it too small (unlikely, then wouldn't it be dumb every time?), 
> or inheriting from another dialog during dist-upgrade.

Unfortunately not, at least not that I've found yet in the docs.  I'll
keep looking, though.

> I can't tell what order it tried to upgrade in, so if it's inheritance I
> cannot tell what "leaked".

Come to think of it, this may be a bug in the potato version of
debconf.  If the testing version of debconf hadn't been configured yet, it
may have still been using the older version (not sure of this...pure
theory).

> This is part of my personal project to keep a "superbase" with me for fast
> system setups.  As woody approaches release I figured I'd better file anything
> odd I saw as a bug...

Good idea :-)

> I find whiptail annoying and the sooner it can be completely replaced forever
> with dialog, the better.  Other apps in my kit insisted on the darn thing, 
> though, and it was part of Base.

:-)

> Of course that didn't stop me from throwing ae out the porthole with a lead
> weight attached, either... 

I can relate to that :-P

Thanks!
C

Message #15 received at 149045-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: chris@debian.org (Christopher C. Chimelis)

To: 149045-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#149045: fixed in binutils 2.12.90.0.14-2

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:17:54 -0400

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
binutils, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

binutils-dev_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
  to pool/main/b/binutils/binutils-dev_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
binutils-doc_2.12.90.0.14-2_all.deb
  to pool/main/b/binutils/binutils-doc_2.12.90.0.14-2_all.deb
binutils-multiarch_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
  to pool/main/b/binutils/binutils-multiarch_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2.diff.gz
  to pool/main/b/binutils/binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2.diff.gz
binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2.dsc
  to pool/main/b/binutils/binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2.dsc
binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
  to pool/main/b/binutils/binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 149045@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Christopher C. Chimelis <chris@debian.org> (supplier of updated binutils package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:54:01 -0400
Source: binutils
Binary: binutils-multiarch binutils-dev binutils-doc binutils
Architecture: source all powerpc
Version: 2.12.90.0.14-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Christopher C. Chimelis <chris@debian.org>
Changed-By: Christopher C. Chimelis <chris@debian.org>
Description: 
 binutils   - The GNU assembler, linker and binary utilities.
 binutils-dev - The GNU binary utilities (BFD development files)
 binutils-doc - Documentation for the GNU assembler, linker and binary utilities.
 binutils-multiarch - Binary utilities that support multi-arch targets.
Closes: 45889 105986 108369 149045
Changes: 
 binutils (2.12.90.0.14-2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * The "Let's Get This Party Started Right" upload
     (since I'm closing as many old bugs as possible)
   * Removed sparc patch altogether
   * Added a small alpha patch from upstream to fix
     some obscure PLT/GOT issues.
   * Manpages are now fixed finally -- no more
     I<symbol> (closes: Bug#108369)
   * Have not gotten another report of the
     debconf message being cut off, so I'm closing
     the debconf-related bug.  I suspect this may
     have been a problem in the debconf front-end
     being used, but I have not been able to reproduce
     it (closes: Bug#149045)
   * Closing a bug report that I had tagged moreinfo
     a LONG time ago (over one year), but never got
     more info on.  I have not heard of this kind
     of problem since, nor have I been able to
     reproduce it at any time since (closes: Bug#105986).
     For interested parties, it revolved around
     allowing gcc to show a linker error, but the
     reporter didn't know about the -v option for
     gcc.  There was a linker problem, but it appeared
     to be either hardware failure or user error.
   * Closing a demangler 'bug' that revolved around
     stripping @PLT from symbol names.  Since the
     PLT suffix is documented, I'm going to close
     this bug.  Also, it doesn't help that the symbol
     in the bug report uses an obsolete mangling style,
     so I can't test this even if I wanted to
     (closes: Bug#45889)
Files: 
 0ac33dedb9ef749003601c40d13b2a58 798 devel standard binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2.dsc
 054949ccedd3301067bb5e37f4f0dad3 181631 devel standard binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2.diff.gz
 5eeab64d9d6cee78ed18729c69f01520 409958 doc optional binutils-doc_2.12.90.0.14-2_all.deb
 2306a8ead5ac3dfad106e04cb29e7d09 1890558 devel standard binutils_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
 bd06b4724a19508d0e62dc719738f9b8 415104 devel extra binutils-dev_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb
 f0246a70488b04ce62fc1f013f504532 2937842 devel extra binutils-multiarch_2.12.90.0.14-2_powerpc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9PDlstjroUn0Xl8IRAndhAJ9QnN+qc8TVm4ZuIDXE1d6pwL/b9ACfX4tj
TgwmE3jpeKGZDc6QiwJuzNY=
=0E0J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.