View Single Post
Old 02-12-2016, 09:01 AM   #65
knc1
On Holiday
knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.knc1 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
knc1's Avatar
 
Posts: 16,266
Karma: 17256902
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Central Texas
Device: No K1, PW2, KV, KOA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jue View Post
No, I didn't get anything before and didn't edit anything I attached. I was wondering myself why the output started with 5620.

The /lib/libc.so.6 output looks fine (directed stdout and stderr to file, nothing removed):
Code:
GNU C Library (EGLIBC) stable release version 2.19, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Compiled by GNU CC version 4.8.3 20140401 (prerelease).
Compiled on a Linux 2.6.35 system on 2014-09-03.
Available extensions:
    crypt add-on version 2.1 by Michael Glad and others
    Native POSIX Threads Library by Ulrich Drepper et al
    BIND-8.2.3-T5B
libc ABIs: UNIQUE
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.eglibc.org/issues/>.
but the libc thing might have been a bad lead. See my updated previous post.
5620 was the process id.

The libc is 2.19, which **should** have all symbols required since the highest the program needs is 2.17.
**but**
The Kindle is running the specialized Ubuntu fork of glibc, eglibc.
(The two projects have since been merged together.)
So there is a possiblity of a mis-match, depending what baf built against.

You could do a 'readelf -a ...' on the files he built, but that would, at most, only tell us exactly what is wrong.

The conclusion is the same - the attempt at a static build has errors in it.
fail this build and let baf re-build it.
knc1 is offline   Reply With Quote