Bug#835148: Bug#837420: Bug#835148: please do not make GCC incompatible, we have dpkg-buildflags for this! (was Re: Bug#837420: Processed: PIE FTBFS are now RC)

On 10/22/2016 01:00 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Bálint Réczey dixit: > >> AFAIK the linux package is the only problematic package were the >> maintainer refused to disable PIE from packaging scripts. > > So, how are you supposed to do that now, instead of filtering > -fPIE from CFLAGS and -pie

Bug#835148: Bug#837420: Bug#835148: please do not make GCC incompatible, we have dpkg-buildflags for this! (was Re: Bug#837420: Processed: PIE FTBFS are now RC)

Hi, 2016-10-22 1:00 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser : > Bálint Réczey dixit: > >>AFAIK the linux package is the only problematic package were the >>maintainer refused to disable PIE from packaging scripts. > > So, how are you supposed to do that now, instead of filtering > -fPIE from

Bug#835148: Bug#837420: Bug#835148: please do not make GCC incompatible, we have dpkg-buildflags for this! (was Re: Bug#837420: Processed: PIE FTBFS are now RC)

Bálint Réczey dixit: >AFAIK the linux package is the only problematic package were the >maintainer refused to disable PIE from packaging scripts. So, how are you supposed to do that now, instead of filtering -fPIE from CFLAGS and -pie from LDFLAGS? Christian/zumbi: do you take care of dietlibc,

Bug#835148: please do not make GCC incompatible, we have dpkg-buildflags for this! (was Re: Bug#837420: Processed: PIE FTBFS are now RC)

Hi Thorsten 2016-10-21 19:11 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser : > Adrian Bunk dixit: > >>gcc-6 6.2.0-7 uploaded to unstable on Tue 18 Oct 2016 defaults to PIE, >>see #835148 for details. > > Oh, thanks. > > This is *so* *totally* the wrong approach, especially as we > have

Bug#835148: please do not make GCC incompatible, we have dpkg-buildflags for this! (was Re: Bug#837420: Processed: PIE FTBFS are now RC)

Adrian Bunk dixit: >gcc-6 6.2.0-7 uploaded to unstable on Tue 18 Oct 2016 defaults to PIE, >see #835148 for details. Oh, thanks. This is *so* *totally* the wrong approach, especially as we have dpkg-buildflags, which was introduced *precisely* for this purpose, and to make Debian’s GCC not