Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-15 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:11:49PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Can you try grepping for the literal string: > > /builddir/build/BUILD/.package_note → https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-notes-leak-all2-4.txt > > > I was planning to do this myself but I'm not sure how to grep across >

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-15 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:52:03PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:01:39PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-14 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:01:39PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully > > gained > > a .package.note section. > > > > packages: 2874

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-14 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:01:39PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi! > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained > a .package.note section. > > packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) If you still have the packages checked out, would it be po

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-13 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 20:05 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:01:45PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files > > successfully gained > > a .package.note section. > > > > packages: 2

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-13 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:01:45PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi! > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained > a .package.note section. > > packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) > ELF files: 72464, see [2] > ELF files with .package.note:

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-11 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11. 02. 22 20:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I did some quick analysis, and the reasons why the notes section is > > missing differ: > >... > >61 python packages > > So... Are the Python packages explicitly opti

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-11 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 11. 02. 22 20:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I did some quick analysis, and the reasons why the notes section is missing differ: ... 61 python packages So... Are the Python packages explicitly opting out? Python itself does not, instead it stores %extension_ldflags rather than

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-11 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Fri, 2022-02-11 at 20:01 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi! > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained > a .package.note section. > > packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) > ELF files: 72464, see [2] > ELF files with .package.note: 47939,

report on the "ELF package notes" status

2022-02-11 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Hi! I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained a .package.note section. packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) ELF files: 72464, see [2] ELF files with .package.note: 47939, see [3] ELF files without: 24525, see [4] It turns out that many of those are specia