Comment # 5 on bug 1231820 from Alexander Leithner
(In reply to Aaron Puchert from comment #4)
> (In reply to Alexander Leithner from comment #3)
> > I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you're trying to say/do here. I'll
> > assume that your experiment produces a PE binary for the rest of my comment,
> > as this is the way I read LD's output here.
> 
> No, it's whatever winegcc produces. You can see the flags, I didn't pass any
> special flags. Anyway, since you've asked:
> 
> $ file output.exe
> output.exe: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
> 
> But this is just a wrapper that in the end calls output.exe.so:
> 
> $ file output.exe.so
> output.exe.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
> static-pie linked, BuildID[sha1]=[...], with debug_info, not stripped
> 
> So it's ELF and not PE.

OK, so now we're on the same page. Sorry for the misunderstanding. In fact,
I've tried compiling my project (a Wine DLL, not an executable, which will only
yield an *.so) with LIBRARY_PATH set as you did and got the very same error
messages about dangerous relocations relating to R_AMD64_IMAGEBASE.

The point of this bug is not that the libraries (*.so, which AFAICT also come
from wine-devel) are missing though, since those are available in the packages,
but that the archive files (*.a) are missing, which would enable correct
linking without any path shenanigans.

> Anyway, the "--enable-archs=i386,x86_64" is an interesting difference. It
> seems to single-handedly explain that you have 32-bit libraries while the
> package does not. However, maybe we need "--enable-archs=x86_64".

The 32-bit archive files are present but the 64-bit ones are missing. (In fact,
my source copy of Wine does not build the *.so files for 32-bit Unix even when
using --enable-archs=i386,x86_64)

I noticed in the build logs that both variants of the wine-devel package do not
explicitly define which architecture to enable, so I guess that this could be
causing the problem of missing 64-bit archive files?

I will try to build Wine from source on my machine once again and I'll play
around with the --enable-archs switch a little bit. Not sure when I'll have
time for that though, but will report back with any results.


You are receiving this mail because: