Mass Rebuild to begin tomorrow (Tuesday, July 11)

[Jesse Keating]

On Monday 10 July 2006 16:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Now, I think it would be good to use --hash-style=gnu in most of our
> packages, after all, during FC5 rebuilt everything was built with
> -fstack-protector and therefore basically all packages rely on
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) and can't be used on older distros either.
> One exception perhaps should be libraries dlopened by statically linked
> binaries (so, essentially a subset of glibc libraries and nss_* package
> shared libraries).
>
> The question is, should that be the default gcc enforces for everybody
> (i.e. if you compile your own proglet in FC6, is it ok if it only has
> .gnu.hash section and not .hash?) or should that be only selected from
> redhat-rpm-config passed flags?
>
> Also, I guess we should add
> Provides: ld-linux.so.2(GNU_HASH)
> (and similar for other arch dynamic linkers) to glibc that supports this
> and for packages built with --hash-style=gnu (i.e. if they have
> DT_GNU_HASH dynamic tag and not DT_HASH) automatically add the
> corresponding Requires.

I think my opinion is to make it the default to use gnu hashing.  If a user 
wants to build for other releases, they really should be using a chroot 
anyway, but they can add the linker option.

If our packages we're pulling into the tree don't work with the gnu has, well 
those packages need to be updated.  Plain and simple.  We can't let old 
compatibility stand in the way of progress (:

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060710/1083761a/attachment.sig>