Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-02-13 Thread Daniel Thomas Hasbrouck
Would prefer that all dpks would load when extracted, or be sent to a save file, like gzip. But I am only a beginner in coding. Daniel T. Hasbrouck On Jan 17, 2017 8:38 PM, "Guillem Jover" wrote: > > Hi! > > I'd like to get some feedback from porters and package maintainers,

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Please CC me, I'm currently not subscribed to debian-devel On 01/18/2017 04:34 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > It also breaks unrelated stuff as now gcc emits notes when it thinks > the -specs option should not be passed. This warning message is very annoying for me as a porter. And it recently also

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-19 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:34:24AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >... > At about the same time this was being considered, I realized that dpkg > could enable this "safely" by using gcc specs files. But this is in > any case also required to be able to disable PIE when it is implicitly > enabled by

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-18 Thread Bálint Réczey
Hi Emilio, 2017-01-18 18:44 GMT+01:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort : > On 18/01/17 18:23, Matthias Klose wrote: >> At this point, I would prefer to revert the PIE changes for the release and >> discuss these after the release with all parties involved. > > It's not the time to revert

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-18 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 18/01/17 18:23, Matthias Klose wrote: > At this point, I would prefer to revert the PIE changes for the release and > discuss these after the release with all parties involved. It's not the time to revert that, thanks. Emilio

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-18 Thread Matthias Klose
On 18.01.2017 09:34, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 08:10:53 +0100, Bálint Réczey wrote: >> 2017-01-18 4:34 GMT+01:00 Guillem Jover : >>> So, I'd like to know how people feel about the requested interface >>> (i.e. not enabling PIE globally from dpkg-buildflags).

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-18 Thread Guillem Jover
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 08:10:53 +0100, Bálint Réczey wrote: > 2017-01-18 4:34 GMT+01:00 Guillem Jover : > > So, I'd like to know how people feel about the requested interface > > (i.e. not enabling PIE globally from dpkg-buildflags). If there's > > consensus that porters and

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-17 Thread Bálint Réczey
Hi, 2017-01-18 4:34 GMT+01:00 Guillem Jover : > Hi! > > I'd like to get some feedback from porters and package maintainers, > given that this affects at least both groups. Some background first. > > One of the reasons PIE has in the past not been enabled by default in >

[RFC] The PIE unholy mess

2017-01-17 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! I'd like to get some feedback from porters and package maintainers, given that this affects at least both groups. Some background first. One of the reasons PIE has in the past not been enabled by default in dpkg-buildflags, is because it introduced some slowness on some arches, although this