From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B791396D0 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 07:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA9862BC017; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 07:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595D0E0BE0 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 07:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53F1F34175A; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 07:02:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1506841339.842.0.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Checking if a package respects LDFLAGS From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 09:02:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <9cc45a33-5f8d-8bec-123c-7f9c9bba77e5@gentoo.org> <2057250.trt0U4FxbA@porto> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 981ce86d-b80d-4820-b988-b4f00fa7e44d X-Archives-Hash: 7bcae53c527a86fb4861e8c5ef82cfc3 W dniu sob, 30.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶49 +0000, użytkownik Robin H. Johnson napisał: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Am Samstag, 30. September 2017, 19:03:59 CEST schrieb Keri Harris: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Is there a recommended method for testing if a package respects LDFLAGS? > > > > > > Arch testers are encouraged to add -Wl,--hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS > > > [1],[2] and portage uses scanelf to check for .hash sections. However it > > > appears that ld defaults to using a .gnu.hash section: > > > > That test used to work, but it's broken now. We need a new one. > > How about something similar to Fedora's binary annotations work, or > injecting a .note.gentoo section into binaries (containing literal > C/CXX/LDFLAGS would be useful). > Portage team is always happy to accept any patch for this. -- Best regards, Michał Górny