Re: Policy for stripping binaries
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: It was elevated to see just how many people this affected. Almost no one runs lintian with -I, I have had several bugs linger for a while that only come out when -I is active and no one ever saw them. What kinds of bugs? The criterion I used for info-level tags was that they were not bugs, just things a maintainer might want to know about the package. Richard Braakman
Re: compressed binaries in packages, for or against?
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 05:16:59PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: As you see, the object hides as an ELF, yet objdump is confused by it. objdump is used by lintian for various pieces of info. It _is_ ELF. Objdump uses BFD, which doesn't understand ELF programs which don't have sections. (They aren't needed for an executable.) -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please use PGP/GPG encryption to send me mail. Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it. -- Florence Ambrose pgpnTE9LvrusZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Policy for stripping binaries
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
It was elevated to see just how many people this affected. Almost no one
runs
lintian with -I, I have had several bugs linger for a while that only come
out
when -I is active and no one ever saw them.
What kinds of bugs? The criterion I used for info-level tags was that
they were not bugs, just things a maintainer might want to know about
the package.
I think he's referring to bugs in lintian.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Re: Policy for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes: No, if DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nostrip, then the value of $(findstring nostrip,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) will be nostrip, and ifeq (,nostrip) is false ... thus binaries won't be stripped. The multiple negatives are a bit on the confusing side. Thanks for the restraint in your answer. I have just reviewed the make directives and realized my error. I had hoped to get a retraction out before anyone responded. :-) Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: compressed binaries in packages, for or against?
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 06:47:08PM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:36:36 -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was recently mailed about lintian failing on UPX compressed binaries in packages. How does it fail? (In what way do the compressed binaries not conform to policy?) I think he means fail in the sense of doesn't operate properly. But to address the other part of your question, even though it's not relevent: something doesn't have to be against policy for us to not want it. I could package up a GPL'd worm to comply 100% with policy, and it's still not something we'd want in the archive. In the case of compressed binaries, it's something that a *sensible* person might recognize as something that people may have reservations about. A sensible person would ask about packaging up compressed binaries before attempting to inflict them on the Project. This is not some game where you try to play fast and loose with the rules to get one over on the other players. This is a cooperative effort where we all try to work together to make a system that makes us all happy. A snide question like in what way do compressed binaries not conform to policy really makes me worry about the person who would ask. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Re: Policy for stripping binaries
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 04:44:24PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: gcc apparently creates sections `.note' and `.comment' when compiling binaries. Running either `strip' or the -s option to install does not remove these redundant sections. Lintian issues a warning `binary-has-unneeded-section' when it detects these sections in a binary. install -s _does_ remove those sections. It was patched for it around the time that the tag was added to Lintian (though long before Shaleh raised it to a warning). You could have easily found this out by trying it. I stand corrected. I thought I had tried it, but I see I that I checked `strip -s' and `LDFLAGS = -s'. (I thought my rules file included `install-s', but on checking, I see it had `LDFLAGS = -s'.) Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: Policy for stripping binaries
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 07:08:14PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: It was elevated to see just how many people this affected. Almost no one runs lintian with -I, I have had several bugs linger for a while that only come out when -I is active and no one ever saw them. What kinds of bugs? The criterion I used for info-level tags was that they were not bugs, just things a maintainer might want to know about the package. I think he's referring to bugs in lintian. And you would be correct (-:
