On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:55AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > Results are available at > > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2016/08/30/pie-bindnow-20160830/ > > I did a full rebuild with bindnow and PIE enabled, then rebuilt all > > failed packages with a pristine unstable chroot. > > You can take a look at > > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2016/08/30/pie-bindnow-20160830/diff.txt > > and grep for "OK Failed" (failed with PIE+bindnow, built fine in > > unstable). (There are 1188 packages failing to build) > > Logs for both builds are available in the respective subdirectories. > Are you sure these are correct? The numbers for PIE+bindnow are a lot > higher than what we see in Ubuntu, for same unmodified packages. > E.g. looking at http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/ftbfs/ > amd64/ppc64el/s390x have PIE+bindnow enabled, and > i386/armhf/arm64/powerpc do not. here is nothing in the thousands > range. There might be a dozen packages with PIE+bindnow fixes in > ubuntu, that's not in debian, but that amount cannot be more than a > dozen or two. Note that enabling PIE by default is going to cause build failures for a number of packages which link against static libraries, if those static libraries have not been rebuilt yet with PIE/PIC. Ubuntu has worked through this transition, so a direct comparison would require a rebootstrap test in Debian instead of just a rebuild test (i.e.: test rebuild packages in dependency order, and build later packages against the output of the earlier rebuilds). -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature