Hi, On Sat, 2015-11-14 at 10:55 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > On 13-Nov-2015, James Cowgill wrote: > > From the build log for dpkg-buildpackage -b (which does work): > > > In file included from linker.c:9:0: > > > linker.c: In function ‘write_link_byte’: > > > header.h:618:36: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > > > #define subtract_pointers(p1,p2) (((int32) p1)-((int32) p2)) > > > ^ > > > linker.c:968:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘subtract_pointers’ > > > if (subtract_pointers(link_data_top,link_data_holding_area) > > > ^ > > > > This looks pretty bad for any 64-bit architecture to me. My guess is > > that it still works due to pure luck that glibc's allocator doesn't > > start at an address above 2GB. The code is also wrong for 32-bit since > > it could potentially result in signed integer overflow if addresses in > > the 2GB-3GB range are used. > > Okay. That's unchanged (from my perspective) since before I looked at > this package. I'll need to learn more about the problem; can you > submit a bug report on Debian's BTS against ‘inform’? Ok I'll do that in a minute. > > debian/Makefile.upstream: > > What is the purpose of this file? > > I'll look into that. It may be a remnant from some earlier change. > > > debian/rules: > > Why not use dh? > > I'd like to understand the rationales for the current ‘debian/rules’, > before replacing it so completely. Certainly migrating to the ‘dh’ > command is a medium-term goal. I suspect the only reason it doesn't use dh is because the package is old. When using dh you would replace all the build rules with something like this: %: dh $@ --sourcedirectory=$(SOURCE_DIR) --with autoreconf and then tweak it a little (you possibly only need to tweak the clean rule and dh_installchangelogs in this case?). > On 13-Nov-2015, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > and with dpkg-buildpackage -A (which would be nice to have since the > > source package produces an arch-independent binary package alongside > > the arch-dependent one). > > I suspect this is also to be addressed by using ‘dh-autoreconf’, would > you agree? Yep (and you've already fixed it). James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part