On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:35:00 +0000 Ady Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:> > > Let's not forget that upstream Syslinux FTBFS when building with > > > binutils 2.27+: > > > > > > "ldlinux.elf: Not enough room for program headers" > > > > > > Workaround in Debian's package: > > > _ Add --no-dynamic-linker to link lines > > > _ 0014_fix_ftbfs_no_dynamic_linker.patch > > > > > > > After updating to the current syslinux development state, that > > patch is no longer required (i.e. syslinux builds fine without > > it). Therefore I intend to drop the patch from Debian once I > > upload a new version and have not included it in my previous mail. > > > I don't know of anything in newer binutils versions that would avoid > the building problem. Any clues?It's not a binutils problem, or at least not *only* a binutils problem? it appears to have been fixed: I can still reproduce the original "fails to build from source" if I re-compile the old version without the patch (using the same version for all the build dependencies). The new syslinux version from git builds fine without the patch. Regards Lukas
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:35:00 +0000 > Ady Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > > > Let's not forget that upstream Syslinux FTBFS when building with > > > > binutils 2.27+: > > > > > > > > "ldlinux.elf: Not enough room for program headers" > > > > > > > > Workaround in Debian's package: > > > > _ Add --no-dynamic-linker to link lines > > > > _ 0014_fix_ftbfs_no_dynamic_linker.patch > > > > > > > > > > After updating to the current syslinux development state, that > > > patch is no longer required (i.e. syslinux builds fine without > > > it). Therefore I intend to drop the patch from Debian once I > > > upload a new version and have not included it in my previous mail. > > > > > > I don't know of anything in newer binutils versions that would avoid > > the building problem. Any clues? > > It's not a binutils problem, or at least not *only* a binutils problem? > it appears to have been fixed: I can still reproduce the original > "fails to build from source" if I re-compile the old version > without the patch (using the same version for all the build > dependencies). The new syslinux version from git builds fine without > the patch. > > Regards > LukasThank you. When you say "new syslinux version from git", do you mean the git head in anonscm.debian.org/git... (Debian's source code for Syslinux-related packages), or rather the upstream Syslinux git head (in repo.or.cz... or in git.zytor.com...)? Either way, your test's results would suggest that the problem might be avoided when/if: _ updating the gnu-efi submodule in Syslinux; _ changing the sort (order) within Makefiles so as to make the build more reproducible. If I'm not mistaken, these 2 are the relevant differences between the code that triggers the FTBFS and the code that doesn't. Regards, Ady.
Hi, On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:19:43 +0000 Ady Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:> When you say "new syslinux version from git", do you mean the git > head in anonscm.debian.org/git... (Debian's source code for > Syslinux-related packages), or rather the upstream Syslinux git head > (in repo.or.cz... or in git.zytor.com...)?Sorry for the confusion: I mean the syslinux git head from git.zytor.com.> Either way, your test's results would suggest that the problem might > be avoided when/if: > > _ updating the gnu-efi submodule in Syslinux;It fails in the `make bios` part, which does not use gnu-efi at all.> _ changing the sort (order) within Makefiles so as to make the build > more reproducible.Both test builds had Debian's patches applied, so that's not it either.> If I'm not mistaken, these 2 are the relevant differences between the > code that triggers the FTBFS and the code that doesn't.I've bisected the issue (building on Debian "testing" but without any patches applied). It is fixed by the following commit: http://git.zytor.com/syslinux/syslinux.git/commit/?id=ff859050fa4e6535cae098dc35d88a265466448d Regards Lukas