Hi,
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 15:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This is a continuation of #1040062, with two parts:
>
> First, I would appreciate if an x32 porter could take a look
> and approve that pie-{compile,link}.spec should also be dropped
> on x32.
Sure. I'm fine with whatever change gets us to build more packages
successfully on x32. I also appreciate these efforts, so thank
you very much!
> Changing gcc to default to PIE on x32 would likely work,
> but the current situation with x32 being the only half-PIE
> architecture due to the random set of packages with
> hardening=+all being PIE and others not causes breakage.
Yeah, that mixed configuration sounds like a bad idea.
> Examples of packages broken due to that:
> https://buildd.debian.org/freefem++
> https://buildd.debian.org/gpgme1.0
> https://buildd.debian.org/gprbuild
> https://buildd.debian.org/libedlib
> https://buildd.debian.org/libgpiod
> https://buildd.debian.org/marisa
> https://buildd.debian.org/python-pylibacl
> https://buildd.debian.org/python-pyxattr
> https://buildd.debian.org/roc-toolkit
> https://buildd.debian.org/uncalled
>
> It also causes extra work when people workaround this
> breakage for individual packages:
> https://bugs.debian.org/1092588
> https://bugs.debian.org/1095522
Agreed.
> Second, even on architectures like m68k and sh4 where the pie
> specs do not make a difference there is the occasional breakage like
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=pylsqpack&suite=sid
>
> While this might technically be a bug in a package,
> obscure breakage only on some of the most exotic ports
> rarely lead to fixing.
Agreed. Let's turn it off on architectures where it currently causes
more problems than it solves.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
