Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-22 15:34:45 EDT --- Thanks, I'm going to try looking at this tomorrow. But on the subject of stripping binaries, firstly you can tell if the binary was damaged by strip by looking at the end of the binary: $ cp /usr/bin/spatch . $ hexdump -C spatch | tail -3 00254d50 42 00 00 0c 66 43 52 43 53 00 00 10 58 00 00 00 |B...fCRCS...X...| 00254d60 05 43 61 6d 6c 31 39 39 39 58 30 30 38 |.Caml1999X008| 00254d6d Notice the Caml1999... signature there. $ strip spatch $ hexdump -C spatch | tail -3 00040940 ee 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................| 00040950 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................| 00040960 And notice that it's gone after stripping, and the binary no longer works: $ ./spatch No bytecode file specified. Secondly, this method of attaching bytecode to binaries (a) sucks, (b) is deprecated upstream, and (c) we should build a native code (non-bytecode) version of spatch for Fedora which bypasses the entire issue. So the whole thing is a big bug, and I need to rebuild this RPM, with any luck tomorrow. Although the RPM above will work for people who just want to try out coccinelle. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review