> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:07 AM Simo Sorce
> Wait what? pkgconf (our pkg-config implementation) builds on even the
> weird esoteric architectures like ppc32 and m68k. What are we missing
> here?
Yeah, and the older implementation in Debian builds and runs fine even on
architectures that have m
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:07 AM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 22:02 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > On 03. 02. 22 16:36, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just tried to build python-gssapi with notes enabled after
> > > krb5 was fixed
> > > and it builds fine.
> > >
> > > See https
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:36:02AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 16:22 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:26:09AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> > > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 15:15 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > > V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Simo Sorc
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 22:02 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On 03. 02. 22 16:36, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >
> > I've just tried to build python-gssapi with notes enabled after
> > krb5 was fixed
> > and it builds fine.
> >
> > See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gssapi/pull-request/4
Nice!
> On 03. 02. 22 16:36, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> I've just tried to build python-gssapi with notes enabled after krb5 was
> fixed
> and it builds fine.
>
> See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gssapi/pull-request/4
It looks like it's not the first time that krb5-config causes issues becau
On 03. 02. 22 16:36, Simo Sorce wrote:
No. krb5-libs will miss its notes. But python-gssapi will contain its correct
notes. (Provided python-gssapi links to krb5-libs dynamically. I don't know
whether the notes only record a source package name the ELF file belongs to,
or whether they try to trac
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 16:22 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:26:09AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 15:15 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> > > > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 10:09 +0100, Florian Weim
V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:26:09AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 15:15 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> > > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 10:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > * Richard W. M. Jones:
> > > >
> > > > > T
On 03/02/2022 15:15, Petr Pisar wrote:
You can disable embedding the package notes by undefining _package_note_file
This is not a fix. Package notes implementation should not touch linker
flags.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
__
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 15:15 +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 10:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Richard W. M. Jones:
> > >
> > > > Thinking about this a bit more, the implementation of this feature
> > > > s
V Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Simo Sorce napsal(a):
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 10:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Richard W. M. Jones:
> >
> > > Thinking about this a bit more, the implementation of this feature
> > > simply seems to be wrong. RPM already has a final stage where it
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 10:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> > Thinking about this a bit more, the implementation of this feature
> > simply seems to be wrong. RPM already has a final stage where it
> > strips ELF files and builds debuginfo. Why wasn't the addition of
>
* Richard W. M. Jones:
> Thinking about this a bit more, the implementation of this feature
> simply seems to be wrong. RPM already has a final stage where it
> strips ELF files and builds debuginfo. Why wasn't the addition of
> package notes done there?
The package notes are in an allocatable
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:58:34PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hmm, so it sounds like OCaml was actually broken already. For example,
> if OCaml is linked with -flto or -use-ld=lld, then this should not "leak"
> into extensions. The split between flags which are appropriate to propa
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:51:54AM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:34, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Another concrete proposal:
> > >
> > > Is there a way to scan all binary packages in Fed
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:04:02PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:50:33PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > Dne 27. 01. 22 v 12:18 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
> > >On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:51:54AM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:34, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > Another concrete proposal:
> >
> > Is there a way to scan all binary packages in Fedora to get either a
> > count or list of those packages that contain strings like
>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:19, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
> > > > found to implement it.
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 13:04 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:50:33PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 12:18 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:59, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 27. 01. 22 v 12:18 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
> >>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >>> wrote:
> > I t
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:50:33PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 27. 01. 22 v 12:18 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
> >On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >>Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
> >>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
Thinking about this a bit more, the implementation of this feature
simply seems to be wrong. RPM already has a final stage where it
strips ELF files and builds debuginfo. Why wasn't the addition of
package notes done there?
So my concrete proposal:
- Revert this change now
- Move the change
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 12:18 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
found to implement i
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> >>> I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
> >>> found to implement it.
> >> I'm all for making
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:19 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
found to implement it.
I'm all for making better, but please make concrete proposals.
Here's a concrete proposal:
-
Dne 27. 01. 22 v 11:28 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
Another concrete proposal:
Is there a way to scan all binary packages in Fedora to get either a
count or list of those packages that contain strings like
"-Wl,-dT,/builddir/". This will give us numbers on how bad the
problem is.
If this w
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:34, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> Another concrete proposal:
>
> Is there a way to scan all binary packages in Fedora to get either a
> count or list of those packages that contain strings like
> "-Wl,-dT,/builddir/". This will give us numbers on how bad the
> problem
Am 27.01.22 um 10:46 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
But the problem is more general than this too. It also turns up in
some *.pc (pkgconf) files.
That's a bug too.
I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
found to implement it.
I'm all for making better, but
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:19, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
> > > found to implement it.
> > I'm all for making better, but please make concrete proposals.
>
> He
Another concrete proposal:
Is there a way to scan all binary packages in Fedora to get either a
count or list of those packages that contain strings like
"-Wl,-dT,/builddir/". This will give us numbers on how bad the
problem is. I suspect it's quite widespread.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtua
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> > I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
> > found to implement it.
> I'm all for making better, but please make concrete proposals.
Here's a concrete proposal:
- Copy %build_*flags to another private
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:05:32AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043092
> >
> > This is not about the feature itself but about the way it has been
> > implemented
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:05:32AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043092
>
> This is not about the feature itself but about the way it has been
> implemented.
>
> During builds LDFLAGS is modified so it contains a build path,
> something like:
>
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:13, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043092
>
> This is not about the feature itself but about the way it has been
> implemented.
>
> During builds LDFLAGS is modified so it contains a build path,
> something like:
>
>
> -Wl,
(Sent too soon)
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:05:32AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I think this change should be reverted until a cleaner way can be
> found to implement it.
And do we have a way to scan all binary packages looking for the build
path so we can find out which ones will need to b
35 matches
Mail list logo
