https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
Bug ID: 828130 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: 17 Priority: unspecified CC: haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen@redhat.com Assignee: petersen@redhat.com Summary: Pandoc fails due to libffi dependency error Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: chris@chriscowley.me.uk Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: pandoc Product: Fedora
Description of problem: Any attempt to run results in an error due to a missing libffi libary.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 1.8.2.1-8.
How reproducible: Everytime
Steps to Reproduce: 1. Using Github default README.md run "pandoc README.md -o README.html" 2. 3.
Actual results: pandoc: error while loading shared libraries: libffi.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Expected results: Produce html file
Additional info: yum provides */libffi.so.6 confirms the lib does not exist in repos.
chris@paul:~ $ ls -l /usr/lib64/libffi* lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 16 May 31 21:39 /usr/lib64/libffi.so -> libffi.so.5.0.10 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 16 Jul 5 2008 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 -> libffi.so.5.0.10 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 33464 Jan 14 07:10 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5.0.10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2012-06-05 06:44:26
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Hmm that looks pretty strange.
$ rpm -q pandoc pandoc-1.8.2.1-8.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -q --requires pandoc | grep libffi libffi.so.5()(64bit) $ rpm -q libffi.x86_64 libffi-3.0.10-2.fc17.x86_64 [petersen@localhost ~/tmp]$ rpm -ql libffi.x86_64 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5.0.10 /usr/share/doc/libffi-3.0.10 /usr/share/doc/libffi-3.0.10/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/libffi-3.0.10/README
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2941298
Even rawhide is still on libffi.so.5.
Perhaps you have libffi6 installed locally and earlier built pandoc yourself??
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
--- Comment #2 from Chris Cowley chris@chriscowley.me.uk --- Nope this was a clean install the other day, I have not got any self-built packages on it. I do not have libffi6 installed either, nor is it available to me in the repositories. The only 3rd party repos I have enabled are RPMFusion, from which I have installed a couple of video related bits. I do not see how that can be related - hell I haven't even installed the akmod-nvidia this time (congratulations Nouveau guys, the performance is finally really good).
chris@paul:~$ rpm -qa | grep libffi libffi-3.0.10-2.fc17.x86_64 libffi-devel-3.0.10-2.fc17.x86_64
I do not do anything clever with this PC, it is the family one. My rpm queries match yours as well:
chris@paul:~$ rpm -q pandoc pandoc-1.8.2.1-8.fc17.x86_64
chris@paul:~$ rpm -q --requires pandoc | grep libffi libffi.so.5()(64bit)
chris@paul:~$ rpm -ql libffi.x86_64 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5.0.10 /usr/share/doc/libffi-3.0.10 /usr/share/doc/libffi-3.0.10/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/libffi-3.0.10/README
I am very surprised that you would close this as not a bug - looks like a bug to me, and if I closed an issue with no resolution in my day job my colleagues would not be happy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
--- Comment #3 from Chris Cowley chris@chriscowley.me.uk --- When I get a chance I will spin a uber-clean VM and see what I get.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Sure, thanks - please reopen if you can still reproduce the problem in a clean environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2)
I am very surprised that you would close this as not a bug - looks like a bug to me, and if I closed an issue with no resolution in my day job my colleagues would not be happy.
I can reopen if you like but that doesn't really change anything :) - there was not a single mention of libffi.so.6 in your follow-up comment.
What do:
$ which pandoc
and
$ ldd `which pandoc` | grep libffi
say?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(chris@chriscowley | |.me.uk)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- I see Ubuntu 12.04 has libffi.so.6...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828130
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|needinfo?(chris@chriscowley | |.me.uk) | Last Closed|2012-06-05 06:44:26 |2012-06-10 23:34:25
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla