On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:27:54PM +0100, Harald van D??k wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:43:28PM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Harald van D??k wrote: > > > would need rechecking of the assembly code on updates just as much as > > > patches which add .note.GNU-stack would, right? > > > > no > > > > you were supposed to send that patch upstream, i guess you didnt huh > > In my first message I explained the reason for asking about these kinds > of patches: because your reason against them -- that they can't be sent > upstream -- didn't apply.
there's a few problems with trying to get configure to detect whether the host assembler supports the --noexecstack option: - it's very easy to get the detection wrong and i'd bet money that anyone doing it for the first time would screw it up - it'll only fix the package if the host binutils are new enough ... this is becoming less of a problem every day, but it's still not uncommon - patching the code to use .note.GNU-stack would work regardless of the binutils version > So I guess this situation would be that I did > send a patch upstream, but it simply wasn't accepted yet. This can > happen with any patch, even those of your preferred kind. then you convince upstream that they're being stupid -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
