Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:53:21 +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: <50BA27F1.3080002@beastielabs.net> In-Reply-To: <50B76AC2.4050207@freebsd.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50BA27F1.3080002>