FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-08-2010, 09:37 PM
Roland Grunberg
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

This is just an update to let maintainers know that the changes to
LD outlined here :

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking

will be in fedora rawhide pretty soon.

The details behind what this feature will do, along with how to
get failing packages to build can be found here :

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnderstandingDSOLinkChange

Also, packages that have failed to build under these new changes can
be found here :

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DSOLinkBugs


Thank-You for your time,
--
Roland Grunberg
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-08-2010, 09:46 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

Roland Grunberg wrote:
> This is just an update to let maintainers know that the changes to
> LD outlined here :
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
>
> will be in fedora rawhide pretty soon.

As a result, you'll be causing dozens of FTBFS bugs just before the feature
freeze. I think this is entirely the wrong time in the release cycle to do
such a change, if it is done at all. (In fact, I still think we're breaking
backwards compatibility for no good reason, and in addition, the combination
of this "feature" and our distrowide packaging policy which dictates
removing .la files causes massive amounts of API incompatibility with
upstream projects. It's sad that FESCo rushed this through within seconds
with only one -1 vote (mine), entirely ignoring my strong objections and
seemingly unaware of the number of affected packages (which surprised even
me, it's even worse than I had expected), and that any attempt to discuss
this further was met with "we've already moved on to the next feature".)

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-08-2010, 11:41 PM
Milos Jakubicek
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On 8.2.2010 23:37, Roland Grunberg wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DSOLinkBugs

281 packages? Wov! (That's after the most often occurring problems have
been already resolved, am I right?)

+ let's say 300 "regular" FTBFS bugs -- the F13 mass rebuild will be
really great...

>
> Thank-You for your time,

You sure it wouldn't be better to wait for F14 with this? With "no
frozen rawhide" you can submit the changes into rawhide quite soon and
everybody has time enough to work on it.

Regards,
Milos
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 01:38 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 17:37 -0500, Roland Grunberg wrote:
> This is just an update to let maintainers know that the changes to
> LD outlined here :
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
>
> will be in fedora rawhide pretty soon.

Worth clarifying here: Rawhide or (and?) F13?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 01:47 AM
Roland McGrath
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

> Worth clarifying here: Rawhide or (and?) F13?

They are still the same thing, so both. gcc-4.4.3-5.fc13 is there right now.


Thanks,
Roland
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 02:10 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 18:47 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Worth clarifying here: Rawhide or (and?) F13?
>
> They are still the same thing, so both.

They will only be so for a fairly short time, and you gave no specific
time frame for landing the change (only 'pretty soon'), so it was not
entirely clear. Thanks.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 07:06 AM
Richard Hughes
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On 8 February 2010 22:46, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> As a result, you'll be causing dozens of FTBFS bugs just before the feature
> freeze. I think this is entirely the wrong time in the release cycle to do
> such a change, if it is done at all.

I've been fixing upstream projects for weeks to build with
--no-as-needed. The list of projects that fail to build should be much
smaller now, especially for GNOME and Freedesktop stuff.

Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 07:50 AM
Parag N(पराग़)
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

Hi,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Worth clarifying here: Rawhide or (and?) F13?
>
> They are still the same thing, so both. *gcc-4.4.3-5.fc13 is there right now.
>
I will say this change is introduced at wrong time, considering we
have only one week left for F13 Alpha freeze. This change should have
been done at time of F12 release where we were already having devel
branches working as F13.
From packager's point of view I can't see anything written at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnderstandingDSOLinkChange. That page
only describes about DSO Linking change but what am I supposed to do
when one of my package fails to build? Should I ask upstream to
hardcode required DSO names in Makefile or we need to modify CFLAGS in
%build section?

Regards,
Parag.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 08:11 AM
Richard Hughes
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

2010/2/9 Parag N(पराग़) <panemade@gmail.com>:
> when one of my package fails to build? Should I ask upstream to
> hardcode required DSO names in Makefile or we need to modify CFLAGS in
> %build section?

Most of the time upstream (myself included) just forgets to add a
library at the end of the LDADD line, so all I had to do was send a
trivial patch upstream to add "-lm" or something.

See here for an example:
http://bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=152993

Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 10:55 AM
Neal Becker
 
Default LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

Will there we a switch to give me the old behavior? I might want this for
my own legacy code.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:02 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org