[RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Jeremy Lainé]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have spent quite some time cleaning up a bunch of recipes which were
triggering "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors, and I don't really want to
have to do this again in the future. I suggest we stop whitelisting
this kind of QA error, using the attached patch.

To track down the faulty packages I have made use of oestats output
(note that not all QA errors are "LDFLAGS ignored"):

http://tinderbox.openembedded.net/packages/?qalog=1

In most cases, the problem is that recipes simply pass
- -L${STAGING_LIBDIR} as LDFLAGS instead of using the full ${LDFLAGS}
variable. The result is that flags such as --hash-style=gnu are
getting ignored.

What are your thoughts?

- --
Jeremy LAINE
Bolloré telecom | 11bis, rue Scribe | F-75009 Paris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknaLysACgkQCL1n3lVB9EZgbQCgoQpUwdae7elUHWag8wqAROY7
D0sAmQGjH0zrO8OxgI5MPfSAshQz9Fuu
=to11
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


[-- Attachment #2: fatal_ldflags.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 450 bytes --]

diff --git a/classes/insane.bbclass b/classes/insane.bbclass
index 3e519c3..9fc5f07 100644
--- a/classes/insane.bbclass
+++ b/classes/insane.bbclass
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ def package_qa_make_fatal_error(error_class, name, path,d):
 
     TODO: Load a whitelist of known errors
     """
-    return not error_class in [0, 5, 7, 9]
+    return not error_class in [0, 5, 7]
 
 def package_qa_write_error(error_class, name, path, d):
     """

[-- Attachment #3: fatal_ldflags.patch.sig --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 72 bytes --]

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Koen Kooi]

On 06-04-09 18:34, Jeremy Lainé wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have spent quite some time cleaning up a bunch of recipes which were
> triggering "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors, and I don't really want to
> have to do this again in the future. I suggest we stop whitelisting
> this kind of QA error, using the attached patch.
>
> To track down the faulty packages I have made use of oestats output
> (note that not all QA errors are "LDFLAGS ignored"):
>
> http://tinderbox.openembedded.net/packages/?qalog=1
>
> In most cases, the problem is that recipes simply pass
> - -L${STAGING_LIBDIR} as LDFLAGS instead of using the full ${LDFLAGS}
> variable. The result is that flags such as --hash-style=gnu are
> getting ignored.
>
> What are your thoughts?

I think making them fatal is a good idea. I do have some recipes where I 
can't fix LDFLAGS properly yet, but I can do INSANE_SKIP = 1 inside 
those for the time being.

So: +1

regards,

Koen

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Khem Raj]

On 4/6/09, Jeremy Lainé <jeremy.laine@bolloretelecom.eu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have spent quite some time cleaning up a bunch of recipes which were
> triggering "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors, and I don't really want to
> have to do this again in the future. I suggest we stop whitelisting
> this kind of QA error, using the attached patch.
>
> To track down the faulty packages I have made use of oestats output
> (note that not all QA errors are "LDFLAGS ignored"):
>
> http://tinderbox.openembedded.net/packages/?qalog=1
>
> In most cases, the problem is that recipes simply pass
> - -L${STAGING_LIBDIR} as LDFLAGS instead of using the full ${LDFLAGS}
> variable. The result is that flags such as --hash-style=gnu are
> getting ignored.

I think we should configure toolchain to pass this flags by gcc driver
while linking instead of making it a part of LDFLAGS it should help in
recipes which use gcc to link.

>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> - --
> Jeremy LAINE
> Bolloré telecom | 11bis, rue Scribe | F-75009 Paris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAknaLysACgkQCL1n3lVB9EZgbQCgoQpUwdae7elUHWag8wqAROY7
> D0sAmQGjH0zrO8OxgI5MPfSAshQz9Fuu
> =to11
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Koen Kooi]

On 06-04-09 23:49, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 4/6/09, Jeremy Lainé<jeremy.laine@bolloretelecom.eu>  wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I have spent quite some time cleaning up a bunch of recipes which were
>> triggering "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors, and I don't really want to
>> have to do this again in the future. I suggest we stop whitelisting
>> this kind of QA error, using the attached patch.
>>
>> To track down the faulty packages I have made use of oestats output
>> (note that not all QA errors are "LDFLAGS ignored"):
>>
>> http://tinderbox.openembedded.net/packages/?qalog=1
>>
>> In most cases, the problem is that recipes simply pass
>> - -L${STAGING_LIBDIR} as LDFLAGS instead of using the full ${LDFLAGS}
>> variable. The result is that flags such as --hash-style=gnu are
>> getting ignored.
>
> I think we should configure toolchain to pass this flags by gcc driver
> while linking instead of making it a part of LDFLAGS it should help in
> recipes which use gcc to link.

While that would improve the situation a bit, it would also mean that 
we'll have a harder time detecting which recipes ignore LDFLAGS.

regards,

Koen

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:49 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> I think we should configure toolchain to pass this flags by gcc driver
> while linking instead of making it a part of LDFLAGS it should help in
> recipes which use gcc to link.

I'm not sure what that would really buy us.  Unless we're going to
abandon LDFLAGS altogether then all the packages that are broken today
would still be broken, it's just that you'd notice the breakage less
often.  Plus, it would presumably mean that any changes to the value of
this flag would require a gcc rebuild, which seems like it'd be
annoying.

p.

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Andrea Adami]

But before making QA fatal, please let fix these (Ignoring for the
moment the QA 'the desktop file is not valid'):

irda-utils:
LDFLAGS ignored, irda-utils,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/irda-utils-0.9.16-r8/install/irda-utils/usr/sbin/dongle_attach
LDFLAGS ignored, irda-utils,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/irda-utils-0.9.16-r8/install/irda-utils/usr/sbin/irdaping
LDFLAGS ignored, irda-utils,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/irda-utils-0.9.16-r8/install/irda-utils/usr/sbin/irattach

hostap-utils:
LDFLAGS ignored, hostap-utils,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/hostap-utils-0.4.7-r5/install/hostap-utils/usr/sbin/hostap_rid
LDFLAGS ignored, hostap-utils,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/hostap-utils-0.4.7-r5/install/hostap-utils/usr/sbin/hostap_io_debug
LDFLAGS ignored, hostap-utils,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/hostap-utils-0.4.7-r5/install/hostap-utils/usr/sbin/hostap_diag

ppp:
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp/usr/sbin/chat
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-oa,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-oa/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/pppoatm.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-oe,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-oe/usr/sbin/pppoe-discovery
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-oe,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-oe/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/rp-pppoe.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-radius,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-radius/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/radattr.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-radius,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-radius/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/radrealms.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-radius,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-radius/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/radius.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-winbind,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-winbind/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/winbind.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-minconn,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-minconn/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/minconn.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-password,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-password/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/passwordfd.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-password,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-password/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/passprompt.so
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-tools,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-tools/usr/sbin/pppdump
LDFLAGS ignored, ppp-tools,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/ppp-2.4.3-r4/install/ppp-tools/usr/sbin/pppstats

obexpush:
LDFLAGS ignored, obexpush,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/obexpush-1.0.0-r4/install/obexpush/usr/bin/obextool
LDFLAGS ignored, obexpush,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/obexpush-1.0.0-r4/install/obexpush/usr/bin/ussp-push


While you're there, why don't try to fix these:

klibc:
non dev contains .so, klibc,
/work/c7x0-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/klibc-1.5-r9/install/klibc/lib/klibc.so

libopieobex0:
non dev contains .so, libopieobex0,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/libopieobex0-1.2.4-r0/install/libopieobex0/usr/lib/opie/plugins/obex/libopieobex.so

libgtkstylus:
non dev contains .so, libgtkstylus,
/work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/libgtkstylus-0.3-r5/install/libgtkstylus/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/modules/libgtkstylus.so

Regards

Andrea

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Phil Blundell]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 17:41 +0200, Andrea Adami wrote:
> libgtkstylus:
> non dev contains .so, libgtkstylus,
> /work/armv5te-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/libgtkstylus-0.3-r5/install/libgtkstylus/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/modules/libgtkstylus.so

This is a bogus error.  The package is behaving correctly, the error
just needs to be suppressed.

p.

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Jeremy Lainé]

As requested I have fixed the following packages which were not respecting LDFLAGS.

* irda-utils
* hostap-utils
* ppp
* obexpush

For the other QA errors I'd rather someone else handled it.

-- 
Jeremy LAINE
Bolloré telecom | 11bis, rue Scribe | F-75009 Paris

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Andrea Adami]

thx for having done the job!

Andrea

Re: [RFC] make "LDFLAGS ignored" QA errors fatal

[Khem Raj]

On (07/04/09 10:23), Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:49 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > I think we should configure toolchain to pass this flags by gcc driver
> > while linking instead of making it a part of LDFLAGS it should help in
> > recipes which use gcc to link.
> 
> I'm not sure what that would really buy us.  Unless we're going to
> abandon LDFLAGS altogether then all the packages that are broken today
> would still be broken, it's just that you'd notice the breakage less
> often.  Plus, it would presumably mean that any changes to the value of

yes this would help if we were making changes just to accomodate the gnu-hash
linker option

> this flag would require a gcc rebuild, which seems like it'd be
> annoying.

I think chosing the hash style is something you will chose to have or to have not
at the beginning. However this will only make toolchain to default to gnu-hash 
on supported architectures one can still use --hash-style=sysv if one has to

Thanks

-Khem

> 
> p.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel