Bug 1541027

Summary:	binutils: Does not use Fedora build flags
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Florian Weimer <fweimer>
Component:	binutils	Assignee:	Nick Clifton <nickc>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	aoliva, dvlasenk, jakub, nickc
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	binutils-2.29.1-19.fc28	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-02-12 10:58:04 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1539083

Description Florian Weimer 2018-02-01 14:49:50 UTC

binutils-2.29.1-15.fc28 was not built with the build flags specified in redhat-rpm-config.

Is there any reason for doing this?  binutils does not build any libraries for external users, so I expect it be to considerably less special than glibc and gcc in this regard.

Comment 1 Nick Clifton 2018-02-01 15:12:26 UTC

(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)

> Is there any reason for doing this?

Nope.  It is just "how it has always been done"(tm).  I will investigate and try to fix.

Comment 2 Florian Weimer 2018-02-01 17:22:16 UTC

In binutils-2.29.1-16, you only injected CFLAGS, but did not set LDFLAGS.  The redhat-rpm-config default is available in the $RPM_LD_FLAGS shell variable within the %build section of the RPM spec file.

Comment 3 Nick Clifton 2018-02-01 17:24:10 UTC

Hi Florian,

  Please could you look at: binutils-2.29.1-16.fc28

  Built here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24624810

  And let me know if this is what you were looking for.

Cheers
  Nick

Comment 4 Florian Weimer 2018-02-08 14:47:50 UTC

Nick, please see comment 2.  LDFLAGS appear to be missing still.

Comment 5 Nick Clifton 2018-02-08 17:27:43 UTC

Hi Florian,

  Sorry, I missed that.  Please see:  binutils-2.29.1-18.fc28 
  from build:

    https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24840215

  This should be inject the linker flags correctly.

Cheers
  Nick

Comment 6 Florian Weimer 2018-02-09 16:17:46 UTC

Nick, I still do not see any annobin notes.  Is this intentional?

Comment 7 Nick Clifton 2018-02-12 10:27:48 UTC

Hi Florian,

  *sigh*  It was not intentional, but it was surprising.  It was all down
  to this *comment* in the binutils.spec file:

    # Only uncomment this next option if there is a problem building
    # the binutils and the compiler complains about the presence of
    # plugins.  The plugin should be harmless, but the compiler always
    # blames it first...
    # %undefine _annotated_build

  It seems that having "%undefine _annotated_build" in your spec file,
  even in comment form, is enough to disable annotations.  So I have
  removed the comment, rebuilt the binutils, and this time 
  "-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1" is showing up in the
  build logs.

  So please try: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24963268

Cheers
  Nick

Comment 8 Florian Weimer 2018-02-12 10:58:04 UTC

Thanks, binutils-2.29.1-19.fc28 confirmed as fixed.

Comment 9 Igor Gnatenko 2018-02-12 11:09:52 UTC

RPM always expands macro, be that in comment or not. You should use % to escape macros.. Like %%undefine __annotated_build.

Comment 10 Nick Clifton 2018-02-12 12:32:43 UTC

(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #9)

> You should use % to escape macros.. Like %%undefine __annotated_build.

Thanks for the tip.  I think what got me though was not that the macro
was being expanded inside the comment, but that it was then being 
interpreted as well.  I guess that this is another case where I need to
pay attention to the warnings generated by "fedpkg lint".