On 12/22/21 01:56, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 21. 12. 21 v 21:56 Tom Stellard napsal(a):
On 12/21/21 01:42, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Tom,
Since you are digging into this and AFAIK you are involved with toolchains, this reminds me this dreaded issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284684
In short, various languages, such as Ruby embeds the build time options and reuse them for build of extensions. And I wonder, would it be possible to generalize this e.g. into some tool, which would set the environment variables and would be usable outside of rpmbuild?
I think the only way to really generalize this is for the upstream projects to
make it easier for distros to manually specify the flags for extensions rather
than automatically taking the flags from the compiler invocation used to build
the interpreter.
I think this is limited POV. The issue is that the languages are actually providing services to their extensions. IOW the languages are doing a lot of probing for their build and they provides these results for their extensions, therefore the extensions don't need to do so much probing. And that is reasonable IMO.
I wasn't suggesting modifying the extension flags directly. What I meant was
that we should be able to specify a set of flags for extensions to use
when we build python, for example. And then extensions would pick up those
flags up the same way they do now via a config file, header, etc.
The problem is that everything is designed to be build on single system, which is not the case for binary distribution.
Moreover, the binary distribution is using some flags for its build, but it does not offer any generic way to reuse these flags for builds done outside of the packaging environment. IOW if I install gcc on my system, it won't be using all the hardening and other flags Fedora itself is using for its build and that is something which should be improved IMO.
I don't think it would be too difficult to install a spec file (not an RPM spec file,
a gcc spec file) that contains the default Fedora flags. Then users could build
with gcc -spec=fedora-flags to get the same set of flags. clang has a similar feature
and could do the same thing.
I don't think we should change the compiler defaults to match what Fedora does, though.
This causes too many headaches for developers who are trying to support multiple distros.
-Tom
Vít
- Tom
Also, Fedora sets all these flags for purpose, but we won't let our users to reuse them. So on top of my previous question, I wonder if we set these flags on the right place and if there would not be better to set them more broadly then just for RPMs.
Vít
Dne 20. 12. 21 v 18:41 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck
== Summary ==
Call %set_build_flags macro automatically at the beginning of the
%build and %check phases of RPM builds in Fedora Linux. This will
ensure that the compiler flag environment variables are set for every
RPM build.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]]
* Email: <tstellar@xxxxxxxxxx>
== Detailed Description ==
The %set_build_flags macro exports common environment variables used
for building packages:
* CFLAGS
* CXXFLAGS
* FFLAGS
* FCFLAGS
* LDFLAGS
* LT_SYS_LIBRARY_PATH
* CC
* CXX
These environment variables are set to the compiler flags defined in
the system RPM configuration. This macro is currently implicitly
called when packages use some of the build system helper macros, like
%configure, %cmake, and %meson. However, not all packages use these
macros and so some packages do not use the correct compiler flags as
required by the Fedora packaging guidelines[1].
This change will be implemented by updating the %__spec_build_pre and
%__speck_check_pre macros in redhat-rpm-config to include
%set_build_flags. This will set these environment variables
automatically before the %build and %check sections. See the proposed
[https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/tstellar/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/c/a39741bbebd645c46e5d675920b4bffe390c95bb?branch=set-build-flags-build-check
implementation] for more details.
The purpose for making this change in both the %build and %check
sections is because sometimes test code gets built in the %check
sections for unit tests and this will ensure that the application code
and its tests are built with the same set of flags.
This change should have no impact on packages that already use
%set_build_flags either directly or indirectly through another macro.
It also won't impact any package that currently sets these environment
variables or modifies any of the %{build*_flags} macros in their
%build or %check sections.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
== Benefit to Fedora ==
This change will ensure that more packages are built using the correct
compiler flags, and bring them in compliance with the Fedora packaging
guidelines. It will also help improve the security of the
distribution as many of the compiler flags help defend against common
security attacks.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
** Make the necessary changes to redhat-rpm-config.
** Help debug any issues uncovered by this change during the mass rebuild.
* Other developers:
** Report bugs to the proposal owner.
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10482 #10482]
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:
== How To Test ==
This change will be tested by rebuilding packages as part of the mass rebuild.
== User Experience ==
This change will make some packages less susceptible to security exploits.
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: The proposal owner will revert the change in
redhat-rpm-config
* Contingency deadline: Beta Freeze
* Blocks release? No
== Documentation ==
None needed.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
