The commit [1] uncovered that the semantics of %_hardened_build macro is kind of non-intuitive. One would expect that setting %_hardened_build to 0 would turn the hardened build off, but it does not. You need to %undefine _hardened_build. IMO, best would be fix the %_hardened_build semantics ASAP, because people tend to %undefine _hardened_build now. Or, if this is really desired - could we set _hardened_build macro to something more obvious (like 'defined') or so? And possibly clearly document that %undefine turns it off? [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/redhat-rpm-config.git/commit/?id=d9235d2d90 [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208344.html
Till would you take care of this?
(In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #0) > IMO, best would be fix the %_hardened_build semantics ASAP, because people > tend to %undefine _hardened_build now. Or, if this is really desired - could > we set _hardened_build macro to something more obvious (like 'defined') or > so? > And possibly clearly document that %undefine turns it off? it is currently documented on the changes page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages#Troubleshooting_steps_for_package_maintainers Actually I am not yet convinced that _hardened_build should stick around forever, since usually all Fedora rpm build flags are always included without a fine-grained way to disable them. For this to decide I would like to have a mass-rebuild of Rawhide, which is delayed for a while now. Last time I checked it was because gcc5 needs to get more stable first. The mass-rebuild will show how many packages are affected and whether it really needs a special configuration option.
(In reply to Till Maas from comment #2) > (In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #0) > > > IMO, best would be fix the %_hardened_build semantics ASAP, because people > > tend to %undefine _hardened_build now. Or, if this is really desired - could > > we set _hardened_build macro to something more obvious (like 'defined') or > > so? > > And possibly clearly document that %undefine turns it off? > > it is currently documented on the changes page: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ > Harden_All_Packages#Troubleshooting_steps_for_package_maintainers Yup, thanks for the link! But I was rather talking about documentation in 'macros' file. I bet that is the first place where maintainers look. Anyway, while you default to '1', should not '0' should turn hardening off (to make it intuitive)? > Actually I am not yet convinced that _hardened_build should stick around > forever since usually all Fedora rpm build flags are always included without > a fine-grained way to disable them. For this to decide I would like to have > a mass-rebuild of Rawhide, which is delayed for a while now. Last time I > checked it was because gcc5 needs to get more stable first. The mass-rebuild > will show how many packages are affected and whether it really needs a > special configuration option. The idea of _hardened_build removal sounds like a way to push users into avoiding using %configure macro (or do other hacks).. for either existing packages (e.g. PostgreSQL bug 952946) or those which could not be build in Fedora in future .. (for "some" reason).
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
FWIW, gcc has disabled hardening too. Look at the gcc's changelog, this is totally misleading.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Unfortunately it is probably too late to change semantics of _hardened_build, but we could possibly at least document that defining it to '0' doesn't help.
Rpm's macro conditionals can only test whether something is defined or not, so there's no nice way to make 0 disable it. Best we can do for now is document it better: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/c/3bf139f6467d9cad77ff309a2c1bcf79560c95e5?branch=master Considering the case closed.