https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850262 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to dan.cermak from comment #3) > - Have you tried talking to upstream to get the shared library option added > upstream so that we don't have this downstream patch? No, I haven't. This package has the same upstream as cadical. I need to submit patches for both packages to upstream. I will do that before the next update to this bug. > - The package's tests fails on i686, armv7hl and s390x: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46161272 I'll investigate. Thanks for noticing. > - consider using `install -p` instead of cp to preserve the timestamps of > the files Hmm? I'm using "cp -p", which does preserve timestamps. > - %{optflags} and $RPM_LD_FLAGS are being phased out, the "new" ones are > %build_cflags and %build_ldflags, respectively. Also, your patch does not > appear to forward the LD_FLAGS to the $(LD) invocation at all. I was unaware of this phasing out. Did I miss an announcement somewhere? (I like the idea of having the names of the two resemble each other. I'll start converting my spec files over as I work on them.) As for the RPM_LD_FLAGS, it looks to me like it is working. I see this in the build log: gcc -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -shared -Wl,-h,libkissat.so.0 -o libkissat.so.0.0.0 allocate.o analyze.o ands.o arena.o assign.o autarky.o averages.o backtrack.o backward.o build.o bump.o check.o clause.o clueue.o collect.o colors.o compact.o config.o decide.o deduce.o dense.o dominate.o dump.o eliminate.o equivalences.o error.o extend.o failed.o file.o flags.o format.o forward.o frames.o gates.o handle.o heap.o ifthenelse.o import.o internal.o learn.o limits.o logging.o minimize.o mode.o options.o phases.o print.o probe.o profile.o promote.o proof.o propdense.o prophyper.o proprobe.o propsearch.o queue.o reduce.o reluctant.o rephase.o report.o resize.o resolve.o resources.o restart.o search.o smooth.o sort.o stack.o statistics.o strengthen.o substitute.o terminate.o ternary.o trail.o transitive.o utilities.o vector.o vivify.o walk.o watch.o weaken.o xors.o -lm and this: gcc -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -o tissat test.o application.o parse.o witness.o testadd.o testallocate.o testapplication.o testarena.o testbump.o testcollect.o testcoverage.o testdivert.o testdump.o testendianess.o testerror.o testfile.o testformat.o testheap.o testinit.o testmain.o testmessages.o testoptions.o testparse.o testprove.o testqueue.o testrandom.o testrank.o testreferences.o testreluctant.o testscheduler.o testsizes.o testsolve.o testsort.o teststack.o testterminate.o testusage.o testvector.o -L. -lkissat -lm So for both the library and the binary, $RPM_LD_FLAGS comprise the first options after "gcc". > - I would suggest to add a fake version to the .so and bump it with each > update as upstream has probably no guarantees about ABI compatibility at all. Yes, that is likely. Okay, let me try to come up with some scheme that won't cause problems if upstream decides to support shared libraries and sonames. Thanks again for the review, Dan! I appreciate you taking the time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
