Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1541027
| Summary: | binutils: Does not use Fedora build flags | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Florian Weimer <fweimer> |
| Component: | binutils | Assignee: | Nick Clifton <nickc> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | aoliva, dvlasenk, jakub, nickc |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | binutils-2.29.1-19.fc28 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-02-12 10:58:04 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1539083 | ||
|
Description
Florian Weimer
2018-02-01 14:49:50 UTC
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0) > Is there any reason for doing this? Nope. It is just "how it has always been done"(tm). I will investigate and try to fix. In binutils-2.29.1-16, you only injected CFLAGS, but did not set LDFLAGS. The redhat-rpm-config default is available in the $RPM_LD_FLAGS shell variable within the %build section of the RPM spec file. Hi Florian, Please could you look at: binutils-2.29.1-16.fc28 Built here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24624810 And let me know if this is what you were looking for. Cheers Nick Nick, please see comment 2. LDFLAGS appear to be missing still. Hi Florian,
Sorry, I missed that. Please see: binutils-2.29.1-18.fc28
from build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24840215
This should be inject the linker flags correctly.
Cheers
Nick
Nick, I still do not see any annobin notes. Is this intentional? Hi Florian,
*sigh* It was not intentional, but it was surprising. It was all down
to this *comment* in the binutils.spec file:
# Only uncomment this next option if there is a problem building
# the binutils and the compiler complains about the presence of
# plugins. The plugin should be harmless, but the compiler always
# blames it first...
# %undefine _annotated_build
It seems that having "%undefine _annotated_build" in your spec file,
even in comment form, is enough to disable annotations. So I have
removed the comment, rebuilt the binutils, and this time
"-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1" is showing up in the
build logs.
So please try: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24963268
Cheers
Nick
Thanks, binutils-2.29.1-19.fc28 confirmed as fixed. RPM always expands macro, be that in comment or not. You should use % to escape macros.. Like %%undefine __annotated_build. (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #9) > You should use % to escape macros.. Like %%undefine __annotated_build. Thanks for the tip. I think what got me though was not that the macro was being expanded inside the comment, but that it was then being interpreted as well. I guess that this is another case where I need to pay attention to the warnings generated by "fedpkg lint". |