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
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
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.
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
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.
(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.
%{__global_cflags} added to x86_64. Changes at: http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot-5.4.4-4.fc10.src.rpm http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec.diff http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=857432
Apologies on the delay here, this one totally fell off my radar. This package is now approved.
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.
cvs done including F-10 branch
This appears to be built in F10 and rawhide, closing this out.