Opened 13 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#9899 closed defect (fixed)

BUG: srm-1.2.8 runtime error - fails to remove files

Reported by: bgmnt@… Owned by: macports-tickets@…
Priority: Normal Milestone:
Component: ports Version: 1.2
Keywords: Cc:
Port:

Description

I get this error when trying to remove a file:

dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found: _fdatasync

Referenced from: /opt/local/bin/srm Expected in: flat namespace

dyld: Symbol not found: _fdatasync

Referenced from: /opt/local/bin/srm Expected in: flat namespace

Trace/BPT trap

I am using srm 1.2.8 on an iBook G4 @ 1.33GHz and 10.4.7. Here are the specifics: Darwin Kernel Version 8.7.0: Fri May 26 15:20:53 PDT 2006; root:xnu-792.6.76.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc. Also Darwinports version 1.211.

Attachments (1)

Portfile-srm.diff (349 bytes) - added by vogt@… 11 years ago.
Patch to Portfile that fixes the bug in Ticket 9899

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (8)

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by markd@…

Summary: srm fails to remove filesBUG: srm-1.2.8 fails to remove files

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by cssdev

I'm not sure if this is implemented on Mac OS X. The closest thing I can find is this gcc patch that avoids using fdatasync() on Mac OS X using some POSIX macros. I believe that fsync(2) is the function to use instead. Maybe notify upstream?

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by markd@…

Summary: BUG: srm-1.2.8 fails to remove filesBUG: srm-1.2.8 runtime error - fails to remove files

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by pipping@…

Milestone: Port Bugs

Changed 11 years ago by vogt@…

Attachment: Portfile-srm.diff added

Patch to Portfile that fixes the bug in Ticket 9899

comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by vogt@…

I just attached a patch to the Portfile that fixes the non-functionality of srm-1.2.8. I have tested this patch on OS X 10.5, running the current version of MacPorts.

The patch simply removes some unnecessary CFLAGS from the Portfile build of srm. Since srm compiles and runs fine if you use the soruce tarball directly from srm's homepage (i.e., not through MacPorts) with no extra flags or configuration options, I'm not sure why these CFLAGS were added to the Portfile build in the first place. If they were added for compatibility purposes with an older OS X version (e.g., 10.3?), I would have no way of testing that. Based on the original ticket description, as well as my own experiences, srm-1.2.8 will not work properly on OS X 10.4 or 10.5 without a patch.

As an aside: I read through the MacPorts documentation, and I couldn't tell whether I should open a new ticket to submit this patch, or just reply to this ticket. If anyone would be willing to let me know whether replying to this ticket was the proper course of action, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much.

comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

Committed the fix in r37212.

comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by (none)

Milestone: Port Bugs

Milestone Port Bugs deleted

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.