Syslinux - Feb 2016 - binutils (objcopy?) >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build

> > Considering that a Mass Rebuild was already performed for F24, then an
> > updated, patched binutils would probably generate new, working 
> > Syslinux-related packages. Otherwise, these packages for/in F24 will
be
> > probably failing.
> > 
> 
> Binutils:
> "Enable -Bsymbolic and -Bsymbolic-functions to PIE"
> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=e20365c
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308296
> 
> Syslinux:
> "core: Clean up the i386-bios build"
> http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/commit/ff85905
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308298
> 
 
 
Except that those upstream links are not going to be enough to solve 
the issues in the downstream distros.

Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware... They need to get at least binutils 
2.26 patched and perhaps also the Syslinux-related packages. (Note: As 
I wrote previously, Debian and Ubuntu would need much more, regarding 
their Syslinux-related packages).

For F24, Fedora will also need to rebuild the packages. In other words, 
the relevant maintainers would need to be aware of this situation and 
then actually do something about it. See for example:

 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308171 

Regards,
Ady.
 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>

On 14.02.2016 18:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote:
> 
>>> Considering that a Mass Rebuild was already performed for F24, then
an
>>> updated, patched binutils would probably generate new, working 
>>> Syslinux-related packages. Otherwise, these packages for/in F24
will be
>>> probably failing.
>>>
>>
>> Binutils:
>> "Enable -Bsymbolic and -Bsymbolic-functions to PIE"
>>
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=e20365c
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308296
>>
>> Syslinux:
>> "core: Clean up the i386-bios build"
>> http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/commit/ff85905
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308298
>>
>  
>  
> Except that those upstream links are not going to be enough to solve 
> the issues in the downstream distros.
> 
You do not see the downstream bugzilla links provided, Fedora related?
> Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware... They need to get at least binutils 
> 2.26 patched and perhaps also the Syslinux-related packages. (Note: As 
> I wrote previously, Debian and Ubuntu would need much more, regarding 
> their Syslinux-related packages).
> 
Let me rephrase the question,
you do not see the downstream bugzilla links provided, Fedora related?
> For F24, Fedora will also need to rebuild the packages. In other words, 
> the relevant maintainers would need to be aware of this situation and 
> then actually do something about it. See for example:
> 
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308171 
> 
Reference to this particular report was already provided,
pay attention to "See Also:" section within rhbz#1308298.

Let me rephrase the question, once more,
you do not see the downstream bugzilla links provided, Fedora related?
> Regards,
> Ady.
>  
BTW, what Linux based distribution you use?

> You do not see the downstream bugzilla links provided, Fedora related?
> 
I should had emphasize the main point I was trying to make: the people 
responsible of making things work in the respective distros would have 
to actually do something with the bug reports (or with whichever 
partial information provided in whichever form) in order for the 
distros to have their respective packages successfully working for 
users.

Generally speaking, in some cases there might be valid reasons for not 
acting on the (sometimes partial, sometimes inaccurate, sometimes 
confusing, sometimes irrelevant) information provided to package 
maintainers, but that's beyond the point I was trying to make - albeit, 
I admit I was not particularly clear in my writing.

Since the original issue presented (thanks to Poma) in this email 
thread seems resolved regarding The Syslinux Project (except for the 
divergence in the Syslinux git repos, but that's another issue now), 
all that remains here is to hope that the respective distros will 
actually apply the necessary steps to solve it.

Regards,
Ady.