On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:36 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> wrote:
>>
>> Won't this still break on systems without libssp where sstate-cache
>> was built on systems with libssp?
>
> these two systems are not same IMO so native sstate should not
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:36 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
wrote:
>
> Won't this still break on systems without libssp where sstate-cache
> was built on systems with libssp?
these two systems are not same IMO so native sstate should not be
shared here it will break more than rpm.
___
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> -fstack-protector needs libssp to link with
> so when checking for this option support we
> need to find if libssp is staged in root file
> system
Won't this still break on systems without libssp where sstate-cache
was built on systems with libss
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 23:12 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> -fstack-protector needs libssp to link with
>> so when checking for this option support we
>> need to find if libssp is staged in root file
>> system
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
>> ---
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 23:12 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> -fstack-protector needs libssp to link with
> so when checking for this option support we
> need to find if libssp is staged in root file
> system
>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
> ---
> .../rpm/rpm/fstack-protector-configure-check.patch | 13 ++
-fstack-protector needs libssp to link with
so when checking for this option support we
need to find if libssp is staged in root file
system
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
.../rpm/rpm/fstack-protector-configure-check.patch | 13 +
meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm_5.4.9.bb |
