Conversation
|
Please see #85951 (comment) and #85951 (comment). Still unclear on how to solve the (apparent) bootstrapping issue. |
|
I don't feel confident enough to say if it's a good / bad idea but this patch: diff --git a/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/common.nix b/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/common.nix
index 0429c7295fb..52fa7191cb7 100644
--- a/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/common.nix
+++ b/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/common.nix
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ stdenv.mkDerivation ({
configureScript="`pwd`/../$sourceRoot/configure"
${lib.optionalString (stdenv.cc.libc != null)
- ''makeFlags="$makeFlags BUILD_LDFLAGS=-Wl,-rpath,${stdenv.cc.libc}/lib"''
+ ''makeFlags="$makeFlags BUILD_LDFLAGS=-Wl,-rpath,${stdenv.cc.libc}/lib OBJDUMP=${stdenv.cc.bintools.bintools}/bin/objdump"''
}does fix the issue with the generation of the stub functions and at least confirms what @thefloweringash found. I don't know if there's a better way to somehow line up the binutils tools that are included in the stdenv with other tools like |
- I've removed the stack of patch linked to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428 . The associated issue says it is closed and targeted for 2.32. - I've ugraded the "no_plugin" patch. The logic changed in https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=41f37a6fb71f2a3de388108f5cdfca9cbe6e9d51 and I tried to keep the same logic by disabling everything. It closes NixOS#78197
469c61c to
b83fb95
Compare
|
Alright, @pbogdan's patch solved the issue and the full bootstrap seems to work now. Managed to build |
|
@lovesegfault just to confirm - with "bootstrap", you meant building |
|
@flokli That's correct. |
|
I'd say let's cook this in staging :-) |
|
Fix for a missing change c10f0a3 Note Python's cffi's tests fail with this bump. |
|
@FRidh I'm not sure I really understand some of these test failures: Why does this code think the platform should be win32? 😕 |
|
Most likely because functions fine though. |
Reverting this change again because we're going back to binutils 2.31. NixOS#86954 (comment) This reverts commit ade7fae.
|
Hmm, CVEs are reported for 2.31.1: #63061 so I wonder if there's a version in-between that fixes them but doesn't break python yet. EDIT: well, we haven't dealt with these in over a year, so perhaps we can just delay a couple weeks longer 😈 |
|
The battle to bump binutils rages on! See you guys in the next episode of the binutils Iliad |
…tils-2.34"" This reverts commit 24c96b9.
…2.34"" This reverts commit 24c96b9.
This hasn't made it past patchPhase since dde943e ("Revert "Revert "Merge pull request NixOS#86954 from lovesegfault/binutils-2.34"""), more than four ago. It's therefore safe to say that nobody depends on this continuing to work in recent Nixpkgs, and all these targetPlatform conditionals are making new development (like adding cross binutils packages), so let's just remove it. It can be brought back if somebody wants to make it work in future, but given that upstream binutils will continue to diverge from the stagnant vc4 fork, a better way of doing this would be to upstream vc4 support to binutils, or at the very least use a different expression for vc4 binutils.
Motivation for this change
Trying #85951 again as it had to be reverted.
cc. @flokli @pbogdan @thefloweringash
Closes #78204
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)