NetBSD Problem Report #56394

From  Fri Sep 10 00:44:37 2021
Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( [])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "", Issuer " CA" (not verified))
	by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADD4F1A9239
	for <>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 00:44:37 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu,  9 Sep 2021 16:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 'build release' misses ld.elf_so but includes ld.elf_so-i386
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.95

>Number:         56394
>Category:       install
>Synopsis:       'build release' fails to include ld.elf_so in base.tar.xz
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    install-manager
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Sep 10 00:45:00 +0000 2021
>Last-Modified:  Fri Sep 10 16:35:01 +0000 2021
>Originator:     The Grey Wolf
>Release:        NetBSD 9.99.88
System: NetBSD 9.99.88 NetBSD 9.99.88 (EDDIE) #16: Tue Aug 31 19:14:47 PDT 2021 amd64
Architecture: x86_64
Machine: amd64
	When I go to build release using the above variables, everything
	builds, but the base.tar.xz set does not include usr/libexec/ld.elf_so.
	This causes numerous "not found" errors when I go to run the 
	dynamically linked binaries in /usr/{,s}bin.
	set env as above (or comparable) and run:
	cd /usr/src;
	./ [ -j12 (optional and dependent on # of CPUs) ] \
		-a ${MACHINE_ARCH} -m ${MACHINE} \
		-D ${DESTDIR} \
		-T ${TOOLDIR} \

From: Paul Goyette <>
Subject: Re: install/56394: 'build release' misses ld.elf_so but includes
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:55:00 -0700 (PDT)

 I did a ``cvs update'' to get most recent sources, and then an update
 build, and it seems to have worked just fine and includes both i386
 and amd64 versions of ld.elf_so

 # tar tzvf base.tar.xz | grep ld.elf_so
 -r-xr-xr-x  0 root   wheel  140448 Sep  8 14:29 ./libexec/ld.elf_so
 -r-xr-xr-x  0 root   wheel  135888 Sep  9 18:39 ./libexec/ld.elf_so-i386
 lrwxr-xr-x  0 root   wheel        0 Sep  8 14:29 ./usr/libexec/ld.elf_so -> /libexec/ld.elf_so
 lrwxr-xr-x  0 root   wheel        0 Sep  8 14:31 ./usr/libexec/ld.elf_so-i386 -> /libexec/ld.elf_so-i386

 I would look for something unusual in the build environment.  (I did
 look at your ENV setting but did not notice anything odd.)

From: Paul Goyette <>
Subject: Re: install/56394: 'build release' misses ld.elf_so but includes
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:58:16 -0700 (PDT)

 Just to eliminate the ''update build'' aspect, I completely wiped all
 of my $DESTDIR $OBJDIR $TOOLDIR $RELEASE directories and ran
 "from scratch".

 ===> command:    ./ -T /build/netbsd-current/tools/x86_64/amd64 -D /build/netbsd-current/dest/amd64 -O /build/netbsd-current/obj/amd64 -R /build/netbsd-current/release -V RELEASEMACHINEDIR=amd64 -V MKDEBUG=yes -V MKKDEBUG=yes -V MKDEBUGLIB=yes -V KERNEL_DIR=no -U -N0 -m amd64 -j12 release
 ===> started:    Fri Sep 10 02:36:40 UTC 2021
 ===> NetBSD version:      9.99.88
 ===> MACHINE:             amd64
 ===> MACHINE_ARCH:        x86_64
 ===> Build platform:      NetBSD 9.99.87 amd64
 ===> HOST_SH:             /bin/sh
 ===> MAKECONF file:       /etc/mk.conf
 ===> TOOLDIR path:        /build/netbsd-current/tools/x86_64/amd64
 ===> DESTDIR path:        /build/netbsd-current/dest/amd64
 ===> RELEASEDIR path:     /build/netbsd-current/release
 ===> Updated makewrapper: /build/netbsd-current/tools/x86_64/amd64/bin/nbmake-amd64
 distribution ===> .
 build ===> .	(with: NOPOSTINSTALL=1)
 Build started at: Fri Sep 10 02:36:41 UTC 2021
  	 Successful make release ended:      Fri Sep 10 03:51:49 UTC 2021
 ===> .

 It successfully built and included in base.tar.xz both the amd64 and
 i386 versions of

 # tar tzvf base.tar.xz | grep ld.elf
 -r-xr-xr-x  0 root   wheel  140448 Sep  9 20:16 ./libexec/ld.elf_so
 -r-xr-xr-x  0 root   wheel  135888 Sep  9 20:17 ./libexec/ld.elf_so-i386
 lrwxr-xr-x  0 root   wheel        0 Sep  9 20:16 ./usr/libexec/ld.elf_so -> /libexec/ld.elf_so
 lrwxr-xr-x  0 root   wheel        0 Sep  9 20:17 ./usr/libexec/ld.elf_so-i386 -> /libexec/ld.elf_so-i386

 I would definitely investigate further to see what might be happening
 in your local set-up.

 FWIW, several other developers have also reported (via IRC) that their
 builds have also included all appropriate files.

From: Bch <>
Subject: Re: install/56394: 'build release' misses ld.elf_so but includes ld.elf_so-386
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:30:55 -0700 (PDT)

 I've worked this problem on amd64 and aarch64/evbarm and I believe
 its related to MKDYNAMICROOT=no. I talked to greywolf on IRC and
 confirmed they have same MKDYNAMICROOT=no build flag. I expected
 to be able to fix w/ something like  (I know patch below is

 katy$ cvs diff -u /usr/src/distrib/sets/lists/base/md.amd64
 Index: /usr/src/distrib/sets/lists/base/md.amd64
 RCS file: /usr/cvsrepo/src/distrib/sets/lists/base/md.amd64,v
 retrieving revision 1.285
 diff -u -r1.285 md.amd64
 --- /usr/src/distrib/sets/lists/base/md.amd64   23 Jun 2021 18:30:32 -0000      1.285
 +++ /usr/src/distrib/sets/lists/base/md.amd64   15 Aug 2021 22:03:03 -0000
 @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
  ./usr/lib/                       base-sys-shlib          pic
  ./usr/lib/                     base-sys-shlib          pic
  ./usr/libexec/ld.elf_so-i386                   base-sys-shlib          compat,pic
 +./usr/libexec/ld.elf_so                        base-sys-shlib          pic,dynamicroot
  ./usr/lkm/aps.o                                        base-obsolete           obsolete
  ./usr/lkm/compat_linux.o                       base-obsolete           obsolete
  ./usr/lkm/exec_linux_elf.o                     base-obsolete           obsolete

 ...but the "dynamicroot" portion of that new entry did not actually
 seem to work. I've removed the "dynamicroot" attribute on my local
 amd64 installation for now to brute force the flist update, and
 builds pass. TBD by expert what is out of alignment -- build
 artifacts or flist, how to update flist.


NetBSD Home
NetBSD PR Database Search

(Contact us) $NetBSD: query-full-pr,v 1.46 2020/01/03 16:35:01 leot Exp $
$NetBSD:,v 1.9 2014/08/02 14:16:04 spz Exp $
Copyright © 1994-2020 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.