On 10/22/2016 01:00 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Bálint Réczey dixit: > >> AFAIK the linux package is the only problematic package were the >> maintainer refused to disable PIE from packaging scripts. > > So, how are you supposed to do that now, instead of filtering > -fPIE from CFLAGS and -pie from LDFLAGS? > > Christian/zumbi: do you take care of dietlibc, or should I?
Yes, I fully intend to fix that - which is why I tagged the bug report "confirmed" when it was first reported, even while it was still of lower severity. I just had a lot of other stuff come up and didn't get to it yet. I had actually planned to take some time on Sunday for this, even before the severity of this bug was bumped. Also, I'd really appreciate it if you talked to me and zumbi first before escalating the bug report and asking for a revert of archive-wide changes in the name of the dietlibc package. Because from my perspective I'm in favor of the change (hence the "confirmed" on the bug when it was first reported, and I did follow the threads on debian-devel related to this) and we could have had this discussion amongst ourselves without involving the gcc maintainers, who probably have to deal with enough things already. Many thanks. Regards, Christian