Hi,
On Fri, 24 May 2019 10:47:22 -0700
Sean Whitton wrote:
> (surely we are a very long way from r-r-r: no for every package?)
I don't think so since lintian info about "should-specify-rules-requires-root"
containts only 98 packages.
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/should-specify-rules-requir
Hello,
On Fri 24 May 2019 at 08:43PM +00, Niels Thykier wrote:
> FYI, debhelper is *not* in control of the default for r-r-r (as stated
> in the quoted text). Therefore, "Changing debhelper'r default" cannot
> be the solution here.
Ah, indeed. I should have written "the default in our package
Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 24 May 2019 at 01:42PM +09, Hideki Yamane wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
In summary: The debhelper fundamentally cannot affect whether
Rules-Requires-Root: no is default or not. The debhelper compat level
system is the wrong interface to do this as well.
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> > Text relocations are forbidden at least on amd64 though.
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7865059/why-does-gcc-force-pic-for-x64-shared-libs
>
> Yeah, but I believe not on i386.
>
> This is really a very 32-bit, x86-specific problem.
Als
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> It's not "contra-productive". It may cause some performance decrease in
> some cases, but benefits are more important than that.
In particular, having to do text relocations during dynamic linking means
that the text segment has to be read/write, which interferes wit
Hello,
On Fri 24 May 2019 at 01:42PM +09, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > In summary: The debhelper fundamentally cannot affect whether
>> > Rules-Requires-Root: no is default or not. The debhelper compat level
>> > system is the wrong interface to do this as well.
>> >
>> > That said, in a di
Dudziak Krzysztof writes:
> Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC must
> be used if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then
> understand that phrase properly?
Yes, the short version for essentially all packaging situations is that
all shared libraries
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:06:55AM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> > Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC
> > must be used if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then
> > understand
> that phrase properly?
> Yes, the policy requires you to use PIC wh
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:28:53AM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> > > Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC
> > > must be used if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then
> > > understand
> > that phrase properly?
> > Yes, the policy requires you to us
Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC must be used
if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then understand that phrase
properly?
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Allbery [mailto:r...@debian.org]
> Sent: Friday, 24. May 2019 01:13
> To: Andrey Rah
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:06:55AM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC must be
> used
> if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then understand that
> phrase properly?
Yes, the policy requires you to use PIC when buildi
11 matches
Mail list logo
