On 03/06/2018 05:55 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Again, IMHO, wiki page should be updated (add something like: -z defs
was postponed ... ) and still it should be added a link to
buildflags.md .
Okay, I made some edits.
BTW "%define _strict_symbol_defs_build 1" will enable -z defs ?
Yes.
On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 12:20 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 05:55 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 16:24 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > ### Disable strict symbol checks in the link editor (ld)
> > >
> > > By default, the link editor will refuse to link shared
On 03/05/2018 05:55 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 16:24 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
### Disable strict symbol checks in the link editor (ld)
By default, the link editor will refuse to link shared objects which
contain undefined symbols. In some cases (such as when a DSO is
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 16:24 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> ### Disable strict symbol checks in the link editor (ld)
>
> By default, the link editor will refuse to link shared objects which
> contain undefined symbols. In some cases (such as when a DSO is
> loaded as a plugin and is expected to
On 2018-01-25, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2018-01-25, Daniel P Berrangé wrote:
>> Not neccessarily - with perl, the APIs used by extensions are actually
>> in libperl.so, not /usr/bin/perl, and the extensions link to libperl.so
>> So perl binary modules ought
On 2018-01-29 16:51, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Florian Weimer > wrote:
I have reverted the -z defs change in rawhide. A substantial number
of underlinked binaries are still shipped in rawhide after this
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I have reverted the -z defs change in rawhide. A substantial number of
> underlinked binaries are still shipped in rawhide after this change, either
> due to explicit overrides or incomplete build flags injection. This
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I have reverted the -z defs change in rawhide. A substantial number of
>> underlinked binaries are still shipped in rawhide after this
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I have reverted the -z defs change in rawhide. A substantial number of
> underlinked binaries are still shipped in rawhide after this change, either
> due to explicit overrides or incomplete build flags injection. This
I have reverted the -z defs change in rawhide. A substantial number of
underlinked binaries are still shipped in rawhide after this change,
either due to explicit overrides or incomplete build flags injection.
This means that it is necessary to review built RPM packages for
incorrectly linked
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:14:52PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> There seems to be a similar issue with perl extensions that use C++ failing
> to link due to missing libstdc++ symbols, eg:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24412387
>
> I think in that case the issue is that
On 01/25/2018 07:20 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 08:50 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> It did [1], and I'm fairly certain it was referenced on this thread
>> already too.
>>
>> [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS2291#Scope
>
> That's poorly advertised. I would not
On 01/25/2018 05:14 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
There seems to be a similar issue with perl extensions that use C++
failing to link due to missing libstdc++ symbols, eg:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24412387
I think in that case the issue is that libgdal is linked to
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 08:45:28AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > %undefine _strict_symbol_defs_build
>
> I tried this to unbreak the linker, but it completely breaks gcc:
>
> configure: error: C compiler cannot create
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:45:28 +
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > %undefine _strict_symbol_defs_build
>
> I tried this to unbreak the linker, but it completely breaks gcc:
>
> configure: error: C
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> %undefine _strict_symbol_defs_build
I tried this to unbreak the linker, but it completely breaks gcc:
configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24460823
On 25/01/18 15:58, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/25/2018 04:37 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2018-01-25, Daniel P Berrangé wrote:
Not neccessarily - with perl, the APIs used by extensions are actually
in libperl.so, not /usr/bin/perl, and the extensions link to libperl.so
So
On 01/25/2018 04:37 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2018-01-25, Daniel P Berrangé wrote:
Not neccessarily - with perl, the APIs used by extensions are actually
in libperl.so, not /usr/bin/perl, and the extensions link to libperl.so
So perl binary modules ought to still build
On 01/25/2018 04:51 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 25 January 2018 at 14:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
../src/fu-device-locker.c:49:1: internal compiler error: in
ix86_expand_prologue, at config/i386/i386.c:14572
Yes, this is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538648
On 25 January 2018 at 14:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> ../src/fu-device-locker.c:49:1: internal compiler error: in
>> ix86_expand_prologue, at config/i386/i386.c:14572
> Yes, this is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538648
Agreed.
> I can perhaps put a workaround
On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 14:50 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Michael Cronenworth > wrote:
> > On 01/25/2018 02:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the -z defs change should be reverted. It breaks very
> > > long-
> > > standing
On 2018-01-25, Daniel P Berrangé wrote:
> Not neccessarily - with perl, the APIs used by extensions are actually
> in libperl.so, not /usr/bin/perl, and the extensions link to libperl.so
> So perl binary modules ought to still build without undefined symbols,
> as IIUC
On 01/25/2018 08:50 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
It did [1], and I'm fairly certain it was referenced on this thread already too.
[1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS2291#Scope
That's poorly advertised. I would not associate a Binutils version update with a
LDFLAGS change.
The
On 01/25/2018 04:04 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
Yes, this is:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538648
I can perhaps put a workaround in redhat-rpm-config, which should make it
much less likely that this compiler bug is encountered. Rebuilding gcc
takes 15+ hours, unfortunately, and
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 03:45 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 25 January 2018 at 14:28, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> Was there a test mass rebuild? If so, how many packages need fixes? I
>>> got bitten by
On 01/25/2018 03:45 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 25 January 2018 at 14:28, Richard Hughes wrote:
Was there a test mass rebuild? If so, how many packages need fixes? I
got bitten by this just now and it would have been nice to fix the
problems upstream before Fedora
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 02:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> I think the -z defs change should be reverted. It breaks very long-
>> standing expected behaviour of linkers and there's been no proper
>> justification for
On 25 January 2018 at 14:28, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Was there a test mass rebuild? If so, how many packages need fixes? I
> got bitten by this just now and it would have been nice to fix the
> problems upstream before Fedora rebuilds just started failing.
Replying to
On 25 January 2018 at 14:21, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> This should go through a Fedora Change workflow. I am unaware of a Fedora
> Change for this.
Was there a test mass rebuild? If so, how many packages need fixes? I
got bitten by this just now and it would have been nice to
On 01/25/2018 02:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I think the -z defs change should be reverted. It breaks very long-
standing expected behaviour of linkers and there's been no proper
justification for doing it.
+1
This should go through a Fedora Change workflow. I am unaware of a Fedora
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:40:29AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> On 25/01/18 07:31, Remi Collet wrote:
>> > Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
>> > > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:40:29AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 25/01/18 07:31, Remi Collet wrote:
> > Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> > > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
> > > objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break
Dne 25.1.2018 v 09:40 Tom Hughes napsal(a):
> On 25/01/18 07:31, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
>>> I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
>>> objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
>>> versioning
On 2018-01-23 20:06, R P Herrold wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
What needs to be done for this ? I see my package "libvirt" present
in its UI
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/libvirt
but it says
"Package is currently ineligible for scheduling due
On 25/01/18 09:17, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:03:34AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 25/01/18 08:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:31:29AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Le
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:03:34AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> On 25/01/18 08:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:31:29AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>> >>Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:03:34AM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 25/01/18 08:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:31:29AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> >>Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> >>>I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
>
On 25/01/18 08:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:31:29AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:31:29AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
> > objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
> > versioning because the are not
On 25/01/18 07:31, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
versioning because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol
Le 22/01/2018 à 16:24, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
> objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
> versioning because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol
> version at run time.
Dne 23.1.2018 v 19:03 Daniel P. Berrange napsal(a):
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:56:47PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 23/01/18 15:38 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> We could deactivate -z defs for F28 and reactivate it after the branch
>>> for F29, giving packagers more time to fix
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 02:06:15PM -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > What needs to be done for this ? I see my package "libvirt" present
> > in its UI
> >
> > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/libvirt
> >
> > but it says
> >
> >
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> What needs to be done for this ? I see my package "libvirt" present
> in its UI
>
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/libvirt
>
> but it says
>
> "Package is currently ineligible for scheduling due to following reasons:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:56:47PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/01/18 15:38 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > We could deactivate -z defs for F28 and reactivate it after the branch
> > for F29, giving packagers more time to fix issues.
>
> I think that might be a good idea (given how late
On 23/01/18 15:38 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
We could deactivate -z defs for F28 and reactivate it after the branch
for F29, giving packagers more time to fix issues.
I think that might be a good idea (given how late in the F28 process
we are) but for many packages it will just mean we have
On 01/23/2018 12:26 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote on 01/23/2018 12:24 AM:
In some cases (such as when a DSO is
loaded as a plugin and is expected to bind to symbols in the main
executable), undefined symbols are expected. In this case, you can
add
%undefine
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 02:04:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 01:49 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
> > > objects
> > > with undefined
On 01/23/2018 01:49 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects
with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol versioning
because the are not necessarily
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects
> with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol versioning
> because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol version at run
>
On 01/23/2018 10:25 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
For the record, my affected packages are (according to koschei, and as
of the time of writing this):
- gala (internal plugins)
- maya-calendar("ceil" reference missing, ppc64 only)
So it's a missing -lm on the linker command line.
- noise
Florian Weimer wrote on 01/23/2018 12:24 AM:
In some cases (such as when a DSO is
loaded as a plugin and is expected to bind to symbols in the main
executable), undefined symbols are expected. In this case, you can
add
%undefine _strict_symbol_defs_build
to the RPM spec file to disable
On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 at 11:28, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Hi, Florian.
>
> On Monday, 22 January 2018 at 16:24, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects
> > with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break
On 01/23/2018 11:28 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi, Florian.
On Monday, 22 January 2018 at 16:24, Florian Weimer wrote:
I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects
with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol versioning
because the
Hi, Florian.
On Monday, 22 January 2018 at 16:24, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects
> with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol versioning
> because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol version at
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects
> with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol versioning
> because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol version
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
> objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
> versioning because the are not necessarily bound to the correct
> symbol version at run
57 matches
Mail list logo