[CFT] devel/binutils 2.23

[Niclas Zeising]

On 12/03/12 19:40, Hans Ottevanger wrote:
> On 12/01/12 16:53, Hans Ottevanger wrote:
>> On 11/29/12 15:01, Niclas Zeising wrote:
>>> On 11/15/12 09:23, Niclas Zeising wrote:
>>>> On 2012-11-15 09:19, Hans Ottevanger wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/12 21:19, Niclas Zeising wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/14/12 15:45, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>>>>>>> It installed fine on ia64 and sparc64, both -current.
>>>>>>> I don't know how to test. Please advise if there are
>>>>>>> simple tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, just to check, I manually deleted *orig files
>>>>>>> from under files/ after applying the patch:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # ls -al /usr/ports/devel/binutils/files/
>>>>>>> total 20
>>>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  2 root  wheel  1024 Nov 14 12:58 .
>>>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  4 root  wheel   512 Nov 14 13:00 ..
>>>>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   353 Nov 14 12:55 patch-bfd_Makefile.in
>>>>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   297 Nov 14 12:55 patch-gold_Makefile.in
>>>>>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   471 Nov 14 12:55 patch-gold_script.cc
>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because I think all files in this directory
>>>>>>> will be used as patches, no matter the name.
>>>>>>> Am I wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just compile test some binaries and see that they link and work ok.
>>>>>> The .orig files are left over when running patch, and has to be removed.
>>>>>>  Sorry if I wasn't clear on that in my previous mail.
>>>>>> Thanks for testing!
>>>>>> Regards!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please be aware that apparently something went wrong with the release of
>>>>> binutils-2.23 (see the discussion ending in:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-10/msg00339.html
>>>>>
>>>>> though I doubt the glitches will affect your usage) and it has been
>>>>> re-released as binutils-2.23.1. Maybe it is better to base the update if
>>>>> the binutils port on that release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that late last night, but haven't had time to update the patch
>>>> yet.  Thank you for pointing it out.
>>>> Regards!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>> Apologies for the delay.  Attached is a patch that updates binutils from
>>> 2.22 to 2.23.1.  Please test it.  The plan is to commit it once 9.1 is
>>> out the door and the feature freeze on the ports tree is lifted.
>>> Regards!
>>>
>>
>> I tested your patch on amd64 and i386 systems (all a recent 8.3-STABLE
>> r243569).
>>
>> The patch applied cleanly and the resulting port compiled without
>> problems, both by directly using make and by using portmaster. I tested
>> the results by recompiling a fairly large application (my gcc based
>> cross-build environment for embedded development) using gcc 4.7 from the
>> ports and the new binutils-2.23.1 on both i386 and amd64, Everything
>> functioned as it should and up to now there were no surprises whatsoever.
>>
>> I do not have the systems to test the other architectures, but I will
>> retest on the 10.0-CURRENT i386 and amd64 systems that I expect to
>> install one of these days. I will come back to you to report on that.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Hans Ottevanger
>>
> 
> I have been taking a closer look at the output of make and find the
> following:
> 
> => SHA256 Checksum OK for binutils-2.23.1.tar.bz2.
> ===>  Patching for binutils-2.23.1
> ===>  Applying FreeBSD patches for binutils-2.23.1
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
>   I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere.
> ===>   binutils-2.23.1 depends on file: /usr/local/lib/libgmp.so - found
> 
> This happens on both 8.3-STABLE and 10.0-CURRENT. It implies that 11 of
> the 14 patches in the directory "files" are not applied. I wonder how
> the binutils get to function at all without them, but the patches are
> probably for exceptional situations and other architectures then amd64
> and i386.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Hans Ottevanger
> 

Have a look at the files/ directory.  It is probably only the .orig
files that are left from applying the patch, or if you didn't apply the
patch with -E, the files are probably still there but empty.
Regards!
-- 
Niclas Zeising