Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:19:31 +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: <50BCFB43.8040906@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <50BCF220.6040905@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50BCFB43.8040906>