Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:40:32 +0100 From: Hans Ottevanger <hans@beastielabs.net> To: Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] devel/binutils 2.23 Message-ID: <50BCF220.6040905@beastielabs.net> In-Reply-To: <50BA27F1.3080002@beastielabs.net> References: <201211141445.qAEEjTXQ047896@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <50A3FCEF.9060204@freebsd.org> <50A4A5A2.2000902@beastielabs.net> <50A4A69B.7030200@freebsd.org> <50B76AC2.4050207@freebsd.org> <50BA27F1.3080002@beastielabs.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 12/01/12 16:53, Hans Ottevanger wrote: > On 11/29/12 15:01, Niclas Zeising wrote: >> On 11/15/12 09:23, Niclas Zeising wrote: >>> On 2012-11-15 09:19, Hans Ottevanger wrote: >>>> On 11/14/12 21:19, Niclas Zeising wrote: >>>>> On 11/14/12 15:45, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >>>>>> It installed fine on ia64 and sparc64, both -current. >>>>>> I don't know how to test. Please advise if there are >>>>>> simple tests. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, just to check, I manually deleted *orig files >>>>>> from under files/ after applying the patch: >>>>>> >>>>>> # ls -al /usr/ports/devel/binutils/files/ >>>>>> total 20 >>>>>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 1024 Nov 14 12:58 . >>>>>> drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 512 Nov 14 13:00 .. >>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 353 Nov 14 12:55 patch-bfd_Makefile.in >>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 297 Nov 14 12:55 patch-gold_Makefile.in >>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 471 Nov 14 12:55 patch-gold_script.cc >>>>>> # >>>>>> >>>>>> because I think all files in this directory >>>>>> will be used as patches, no matter the name. >>>>>> Am I wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> Anton >>>>> >>>>> Just compile test some binaries and see that they link and work ok. >>>>> The .orig files are left over when running patch, and has to be removed. >>>>> Sorry if I wasn't clear on that in my previous mail. >>>>> Thanks for testing! >>>>> Regards! >>>> >>>> Please be aware that apparently something went wrong with the release of >>>> binutils-2.23 (see the discussion ending in: >>>> >>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-10/msg00339.html >>>> >>>> though I doubt the glitches will affect your usage) and it has been >>>> re-released as binutils-2.23.1. Maybe it is better to base the update if >>>> the binutils port on that release. >>>> >>> >>> I noticed that late last night, but haven't had time to update the patch >>> yet. Thank you for pointing it out. >>> Regards! >>> >> >> Hi! >> Apologies for the delay. Attached is a patch that updates binutils from >> 2.22 to 2.23.1. Please test it. The plan is to commit it once 9.1 is >> out the door and the feature freeze on the ports tree is lifted. >> Regards! >> > > I tested your patch on amd64 and i386 systems (all a recent 8.3-STABLE > r243569). > > The patch applied cleanly and the resulting port compiled without > problems, both by directly using make and by using portmaster. I tested > the results by recompiling a fairly large application (my gcc based > cross-build environment for embedded development) using gcc 4.7 from the > ports and the new binutils-2.23.1 on both i386 and amd64, Everything > functioned as it should and up to now there were no surprises whatsoever. > > I do not have the systems to test the other architectures, but I will > retest on the 10.0-CURRENT i386 and amd64 systems that I expect to > install one of these days. I will come back to you to report on that. > > Kind regards, > > Hans Ottevanger > I have been taking a closer look at the output of make and find the following: => SHA256 Checksum OK for binutils-2.23.1.tar.bz2. ===> Patching for binutils-2.23.1 ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for binutils-2.23.1 I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. ===> binutils-2.23.1 depends on file: /usr/local/lib/libgmp.so - found This happens on both 8.3-STABLE and 10.0-CURRENT. It implies that 11 of the 14 patches in the directory "files" are not applied. I wonder how the binutils get to function at all without them, but the patches are probably for exceptional situations and other architectures then amd64 and i386. Kind regards, Hans Ottevangerhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50BCF220.6040905>