[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #16472 [Applications/Tor Browser]: Upgrade Binutils to 2.25+ for Tor Browser builds
#16472: Upgrade Binutils to 2.25+ for Tor Browser builds
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: gk | Owner: tbb-
| team
Type: task | Status:
| needs_review
Priority: Very High | Milestone:
Component: Applications/Tor Browser | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tbb-rbm, boklm201805, | Actual Points:
TorBrowserTeam201805R |
Parent ID: #12968 | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by boklm):
Replying to [comment:88 gk]:
> I've not reviewed the patch rebasing yet. But here come some notes:
>
> 1) We are reverting 13e570f80cbfb299a8858ce6830e91a6cb40ab7b and
suddenly need `texinfo` for that? At least the comment suggest that
without reverting this patch we would not need it. Is that what you
intended to say with the comment?
Yes, that is what I intended to say. Without texinfo installed the build
fails with:
{{{
/var/tmp/tmp.MNtA4ToB92/binutils-2.26.1/missing: 81:
/var/tmp/tmp.MNtA4ToB92/binutils-2.26.1/missing: makeinfo: not found
WARNING: 'makeinfo' is missing on your system.
You should only need it if you modified a '.texi' file, or
any other file indirectly affecting the aspect of the manual.
You might want to install the Texinfo package:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/>
The spurious makeinfo call might also be the consequence of
using a buggy 'make' (AIX, DU, IRIX), in which case you might
want to install GNU make:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/make/>
make[3]: *** [bfd.info] Error 127
Makefile:443: recipe for target 'bfd.info' failed
}}}
But it doesn't fail if I disable the patch to revert
13e570f80cbfb299a8858ce. Maybe the Makefile is looking at the timestamp of
some files modified by the patch to find if it needs to update
documentation using makeinfo.
>
> 2) Have you checked whether just passing the `no-insert-timestamp` flag
to `APPEND_CCFLAGS` is enough? Or just to `APPEND_LINKFLAGS`? It seems to
me either `no-insert-timstamp` is passed on to the linker in which case we
would not need that extra patch or it is not passed on, in which case I am
wondering why we add it to `APPEND_CCFLAGS`.
Yes, passing the `no-insert-timestamp` flag to `APPEND_CCFLAGS` is not
fixing the issue as it seems it is not passed on to the linker. So indeed
there is no need to add it `APPEND_CCFLAGS`.
I removed the `no-insert-timestamp` flag from `APPEND_CCFLAGS` and fixed
the typo in branch `bug_16472_v16`:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/boklm/tor-browser-
build.git/commit/?h=bug_16472_v16&id=b24500f6880e2c461050e248c0f7e587b5201d51
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16472#comment:89>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs