| 1 |
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 09:02:19 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> W dniu sob, 30.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶49 +0000, użytkownik Robin H. |
| 5 |
> Johnson napisał: |
| 6 |
> > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > Am Samstag, 30. September 2017, 19:03:59 CEST schrieb Keri Harris: |
| 8 |
> > > > Hi, |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > Is there a recommended method for testing if a package respects LDFLAGS? |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > Arch testers are encouraged to add -Wl,--hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS |
| 13 |
> > > > [1],[2] and portage uses scanelf to check for .hash sections. However it |
| 14 |
> > > > appears that ld defaults to using a .gnu.hash section: |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > That test used to work, but it's broken now. We need a new one. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > How about something similar to Fedora's binary annotations work, or |
| 19 |
> > injecting a .note.gentoo section into binaries (containing literal |
| 20 |
> > C/CXX/LDFLAGS would be useful). |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Portage team is always happy to accept any patch for this. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Tracking bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/455232 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Sergei |
Archives