Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:31:20 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: new gcc and packages Hi Mesut, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:26:29PM +0300, Mesut Can G?rle wrote: > I packaged new gcc(4.7.0). I updated the patch and applied Solar Designer's > recommended patch. I use new gcc (4.7.0) and try to make buildworld. Thank you! > Failing packages for both x86_64 and i686 : > > -kernel > > This issue is talked on http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50876. > They provide a patch for this. But first the patch must be confirmed. Your build logs show: gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-melf_i386' gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-melf_x86_64' While this might be caused by the bug you referenced, I am not sure that this is the case. Have you tried applying that patch? If so, was the error gone? > -nmap > > Needs OpenSSL 0.9.8 or later for SHA-256 support. Default OpenSSL on > Openwall is 0.9.7. But when I use OpenSSL in the cvs, nmap is successfully > built. Actually, we moved to OpenSSL 1.0.0 in Owl-current over a year ago, so I am puzzled by this comment - did you start with this testing on some mix of Owl 3.0 and Owl-current? > All packages (except kernel) can be built when dependencies are matched. Again, the reference to having to match their dependencies suggests that you were not building on Owl-current. I think the test builds will need to be redone on cleanly installed Owl-current (e.g., using one of our precreated OpenVZ templates of the Owl-current userland - maybe chroot'ing into that tree if you don't have Owl as your "host" Linux distro and you don't use OpenVZ there). > All related files can be accessible from http://mesutcang.net23.net/owl/gcc. Thanks. I looked at some build logs there, and also at gcc.spec.diff. Here are some comments on the latter: As discussed before, you're switching from gcc-core and gcc-g++ tarballs to the larger cumulative gcc tarball. This change is not acceptable for committing into our tree. The gcc-4.7.0-owl-wrong-code-generation.diff would need to have something other than "owl" in its filename: we'd need to credit the patch's original author (or project/team/company). That said, since it is not clear whether we'd be committing an update to 4.7.0 at all (maybe we'd instead update to 4.7.1+ right away), we don't have to bother with this right now. That patch file would be gone with 4.7.1+ anyway. --enable-languages=c,c++ was discussed before (needed because of the source tarballs change, OK to have either way), but why are you adding --disable-bootstrap and removing bootstrap-lean? (This is merely a question. The change may well be appropriate, but we need to know why it is made.) I understand that some of the above might require substantial time (such as for re-doing the test builds), so I am not really asking you to do that. Please just provide answers that you readily have. I understand that you need to re-focus on your GSoC project with PacketFence now, so we're likely to proceed further with the gcc update on our own - but it's helpful to have the full set of readily-available answers from you such that we don't waste time on things that you've already tried. Overall, I am happy to know that only the kernel did not build. Thanks again, Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.