Bug 464621 (EtherbootPkg)

Summary: Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Glauber Costa <gcosta>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: ehabkost, fedora-package-review, notting, tcallawa
Target Milestone: ---Flags: tcallawa: fedora-review+
huzaifas: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-12-10 15:33:10 UTC Type: ---
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: 464790    

Description Glauber Costa 2008-09-29 18:40:29 UTC
Spec URL: http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec
SRPM URL: http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/etherboot-5.4.3-3.fc10.src.rpm
Description: Etherboot is a software package for creating ROM images that can
download code over an Ethernet network to be executed on an x86
computer. Many network adapters have a socket where a ROM chip can be
installed. Etherboot is code that can be put in such a ROM

Comment 1 Eduardo Habkost 2008-09-29 23:04:55 UTC
Package updated after some discussion with spot.

Spec: http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec
Spec diff from previous version: http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec.diff
SRPM: http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot-5.4.4-2.fc10.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=851235

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-30 14:35:28 UTC
Okay, the only thing that I see is that these aren't being built with the Fedora optflags. Unfortunately, the -fstack-protector causes these roms to fail to build cleanly, but you should be able to pass this with make:

EXTRA_CFLAGS="`echo %{optflags} |sed 's|-fstack-protector||g'`"

Please make that fix and I'll finish off the review.

Comment 3 Eduardo Habkost 2008-09-30 18:45:32 UTC
Updated with the EXTRA_FLAGS change.

I've not set EXTRA_FLAGS on x86_64 because it breaks the building of 32-bits binaries. We could simply use the prebuilt binaries on x86_64 also, but I think prebuilt binaries are worse than the hack to build 32-bit binaries on x86_64. But prebuilt binaries can be enabled on x86_64 by simply removing x86_64 from the definition of %{real_build_arches}, if desired.

http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot-5.4.4-3.fc10.src.rpm
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec.diff
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=852829

Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-30 19:17:35 UTC
The only concern here is that the 32bit built roms on x86_64 will not be the same as those used on i386, due to the different optflags in use.

Maybe we could use:

EXTRA_CLFAGS="`echo %{__global_cflags} |sed 's|-fstack-protector||g'`"

That should avoid the -m32/-m64 issues that are causing the failure on x86_64.

Comment 5 Eduardo Habkost 2008-09-30 19:34:12 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> The only concern here is that the 32bit built roms on x86_64 will not be the
> same as those used on i386, due to the different optflags in use.
> 

Even before introducing optflags, the x86_64 binaries were not bitwise-equal to the i386 ones (I didn't check how different they were), I guess there are differences (small ones, I expect) on the way gcc behaves when running native 32-bit or compiling 32-bit binaries on x86_64. But I don't expect the binaries to be exactly the same, anyway.

> Maybe we could use:
> 
> EXTRA_CLFAGS="`echo %{__global_cflags} |sed 's|-fstack-protector||g'`"
> 
> That should avoid the -m32/-m64 issues that are causing the failure on x86_64.

That may work.

Comment 7 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-10-15 18:25:35 UTC
Apologies on the delay here, this one totally fell off my radar. This package is now approved.

Comment 8 Eduardo Habkost 2008-10-20 12:51:21 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: etherboot
Short Description: Etherboot collection of boot roms
Owners: ehabkost, glommer
Branches: devel


Is it too late for F-10? I don't know if I should request a F-10 branch also.

Comment 9 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2008-10-22 10:31:04 UTC
cvs done including F-10 branch

Comment 10 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-12-10 15:33:10 UTC
This appears to be built in F10 and rawhide, closing this out.