Skip to content

libtinfo.so.6 Version Information Warning on Fedora #539

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
ComradeJian opened this issue Feb 15, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

libtinfo.so.6 Version Information Warning on Fedora #539

ComradeJian opened this issue Feb 15, 2025 · 3 comments

Comments

@ComradeJian
Copy link

ComradeJian commented Feb 15, 2025

Issue:

When building on Fedora 41, the toolchain outputs warnings about missing version information for libtinfo:

/home/<user>/CEdev/bin/ez80-clang: /lib64/libtinfo.so.6: no version information available (required by /home/<user>/CEdev/bin/ez80-clang)

This warning appears for both ez80-clang and ez80-link during the build process. The warning obviously doesn't affect functionality but it does flood the build output.

Environment:

  • OS: Fedora (with up-to-date ncurses-libs 6.5-2.20240629.fc41)
  • Toolchain: Both stable release (4 months old) and nightly build (2 days old)
  • ncurses-libs version: 6.5
  • libtinfo path: /lib64/libtinfo.so.6 -> libtinfo.so.6.5

Digging a little bit deeper:

  1. Confirmed toolchain was built on Ubuntu:
GCC: (Ubuntu 12.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) 12.3.0
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.0-1ubuntu1.1
  1. Examined library dependencies:
$ ldd ~/CEdev/bin/ez80-clang
# Shows libtinfo.so.6 with same version warning
  1. Checked version symbols in system libtinfo:
$ readelf -V /lib64/libtinfo.so.6
# Shows GLIBC versions 2.2.5 through 2.33
  1. Examined toolchain binary:
$ readelf -V ~/CEdev/bin/ez80-clang | grep VERNEED
# No VERNEED entries found

The issue appears to be distribution-specific, possibly due to differences in how libtinfo is built between Ubuntu and Fedora. The toolchain binary expects version information that isn't present in Fedora's libtinfo, despite having a compatible version (6.5).

Currently using a wrapper script to filter out the warnings:

#!/bin/bash
TOOL_PATH="$(cedev-config --prefix)/bin/${CMD_NAME}"
exec 3>&2
"$TOOL_PATH" "$@" 2> >(grep -v "libtinfo.so.6: no version information available" >&3)
exec 3>&-

Is this a known issue with Fedora systems? Would it be possible to build the toolchain with different libtinfo linking options to avoid these warnings? Or is there a current workaround that I'm missing.

@mateoconlechuga
Copy link
Member

If we updated the compiler we would no longer need libtinfo. That might be a bit too much work though, so for now you could always just build the compiler/linker for fedora manually.... or we could probably do that.

@adriweb
Copy link
Member

adriweb commented Feb 15, 2025

Note that until a few days ago, the Linux CI was using Ubuntu 20.04 (now 22.04 as GitHub is discontinuing the older one).

What if you try the nightly build (see in the Releases) of those two binaries?

Of course if it's a distro-package-config issue and not a distro-version issue, the problem will still be there... but it's worth a try.

@ComradeJian
Copy link
Author

ComradeJian commented Feb 17, 2025

I tested with the nightly build, but the warning persists in the same manner, flooding the console as the compiler builds each file:

[compiling] src/file1.c
/home/.../CEdev/bin/ez80-clang: /lib64/libtinfo.so.6: no version information available (required by /home/.../CEdev/bin/ez80-clang)
[compiling] src/file2.c
/home/.../CEdev/bin/ez80-clang: /lib64/libtinfo.so.6: no version information available (required by /home/.../CEdev/bin/ez80-clang)
# etc lol
[compiling] src/main.c
/home/.../CEdev/bin/ez80-clang: /lib64/libtinfo.so.6: no version information available (required by /home/.../CEdev/bin/ez80-clang)
[convimg] icon.png
[linking] bin/demo.bin
[success] bin/demo.8xp, 6969 bytes

My afore-written wrapper script is still a sufficient local solution for me though. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants