* Denis Fateyev: > For example, "libscrypt" package issue is filled here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2046062 > The library in the package was actually built, but the build results are different under > various GCC versions — as shown in the "nm" dump below. > > Has anybody already faced a similar issue? Is there any information on > what could cause the problem, and how to fix it? The upstream makefile uses: CFLAGS?=-O2 -Wall -g -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector -fPIC LDFLAGS?=-Wl,-z,now -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-soname,libscrypt.so.0 -Wl,--version-script=libscrypt.version Due to this change %set_build_flags for %build, %check, and %install phases <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck> CLFAGS and LDFLAGS are now set by Fedora, effectively dropping the package-specific -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-soname,libscrypt.so.0 -Wl,--version-script=libscrypt.version flags. If you add LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-soname,libscrypt.so.0 -Wl,--version-script=libscrypt.version" to %build before the make invocation, it should get things to work as before. Or perhaps patch the upstream makefile, so that you get a patch application failure if the upstream flag defaults change: -LDFLAGS?=-Wl,-z,now -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-soname,libscrypt.so.0 -Wl,--version-script=libscrypt.version +LDFLAGS += -Wl,-soname,libscrypt.so.0 -Wl,--version-script=libscrypt.version Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ 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
