[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#892281: marked as done (gcc: make PIE opt-out rather than opt-in)

Your message dated Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:07:12 +0000
with message-id <[🔎] E1lAudk-0000FN-1x@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#954831: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #892281,
regarding gcc: make PIE opt-out rather than opt-in
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
892281: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=892281
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: gcc-8
Version: 8-20180218-1
Severity: wishlist

We have long transitioned to PIE by default on all release architectures
now. Still each gcc-V package tracks the architectures that enable PIE
by default in an opt-in list (pie_archs).

Since it is the default, PIE is much better supported than !PIE now.
For instance, musl-linux-mips fails building dash, because ld segfaults.
Once enabling PIE for musl, it proceeds. Similarly, x32 fails linking
systemd and it obviously is connected to !PIE:

    ld: /tmp/cc9ezYWe.ltrans0.ltrans.o: relocation R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata' can not be used when making a PIE object; recompile with -fPIC

Very likely, the riscv64 people want to enable PIE by default as well.

Since it practically is the default "everywhere", can we move on to
enable PIE for all "new" architectures by turning the opt-in list
opt-out? While at it, can we keep this list as small as possible? At
least for musl-linux-any and x32, we know that !PIE causes more harm
than PIE.

I've Cced this to d-devel to have people object, but I think the case is
pretty clear at this point, because opt-out will reduce the maintenance
cost.

Helmut

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 1:8.4.0-7+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package gcc-8 has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/954831

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Joerg Jaspert (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---
Reply to: