I'm exploring possible options like patching (upstream) GCC to disable
PIE for kernel or patching (upstream) kernel to disable PIE when it can
be disabled.
AFAIK the linux package is the only problematic package were the
maintainer refused to disable PIE from packaging scripts.
And I shre with
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
Hi,
2016-10-22 1:00 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> 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
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,
Hi Thorsten
2016-10-21 19:11 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> Adrian Bunk dixit:
>
>>gcc-6 6.2.0-7 uploaded to unstable on Tue 18 Oct 2016 defaults to PIE,
>>see #835148 for details.
>
> Oh, thanks.
>
> This is *so* *totally* the wrong approach, especially as we
> have
Adrian Bunk dixit:
>gcc-6 6.2.0-7 uploaded to unstable on Tue 18 Oct 2016 defaults to PIE,
>see #835148 for details.
Oh, thanks.
This is *so* *totally* the wrong approach, especially as we
have dpkg-buildflags, which was introduced *precisely* for
this purpose, and to make Debian’s GCC not
6 matches
Mail list logo