Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:06:43 +0100 From: Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> To: Hans Ottevanger <hans@beastielabs.net> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] devel/binutils 2.23 Message-ID: <50BF0EA3.2080600@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <50BEF61C.2050908@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> <50BCF220.6040905@beastielabs.net> <50BCFB43.8040906@freebsd.org> <50BEF61C.2050908@beastielabs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/05/12 08:22, Hans Ottevanger wrote: > On 12/03/12 20:19, Niclas Zeising wrote: >> On 12/03/12 19:40, Hans Ottevanger wrote: >>> 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 Ottevanger >>> >> >> Have a look at the files/ directory. It is probably only the .orig >> files that are left from applying the patch, or if you didn't apply the >> patch with -E, the files are probably still there but empty. >> Regards! >> > > Yep, those files are all empty, I should have looked there before > grabbing my mailer. Using patch -E indeed solves the problem. BTW, good > to see that only 3 patches are left. > > In other news, I also tested your pathes on an i386 10-CURRENT > installation (r243831 and everything seems to work fine. I had to change > my plans a bit concerning a test on amd64 10-CURRENT. That will have to > wait till a system reshuffle over here, taking place only after 9.1 is > released. Thank you very much for your help in testing binutils! There is no need for you to test amd64, unless you want to. I have an amd64 installation here that I've tested on, and it works fine. Regards! -- Niclas Zeising
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50BF0EA3.2080600>