From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 3 19:19:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8611D9 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:19:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zeising@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F208FC16 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:19:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A40640008 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 48B9540007; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:36 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bernadotte.lysator.liu.se X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 Received: from mx.daemonic.se (h-45-105.a163.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.45.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62DF340004; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailscanner.daemonic.se (mailscanner.daemonic.se [IPv6:2001:470:dca9:0:1::6]) by mx.daemonic.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3YFbcQ73l1z8hVt; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:34 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daemonic.se Received: from mx.daemonic.se ([10.1.0.3]) (using TLS with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA) by mailscanner.daemonic.se (mailscanner.daemonic.se [10.1.0.6]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTPS id 1cq6CUT9mwXj; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.daemonic.se (mail.daemonic.se [10.1.0.4]) by mx.daemonic.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3YFbcM6Kl1z8hVn; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from vivi.daemonic.se (vivi.daemonic.se [IPv6:2001:470:dca9:1::4]) by mail.daemonic.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3YFbcM5zgDz9Ctj; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:19:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50BCFB43.8040906@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:19:31 +0100 From: Niclas Zeising User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Ottevanger Subject: Re: [CFT] devel/binutils 2.23 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> In-Reply-To: <50BCF220.6040905@beastielabs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:19:38 -0000 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! -- Niclas Zeising