This bug was fixed in the package binutils - 2.42-4ubuntu2.3
---------------
binutils (2.42-4ubuntu2.3) noble-proposed; urgency=medium
* SRU: LP: #2076024: Build with -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
* Build loong64 packages on arm64 and ppc64el.
* ld.bfd, ld.gold: When no package-metadata option is given, fall-back
to the envvar ELF_PACKAGE_METADATA.
-- Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> Wed, 07 Aug 2024 12:15:13 +0200
** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu Noble)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2076024
Title:
SRU: build with -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Status in binutils package in Ubuntu:
New
Status in binutils source package in Noble:
Fix Released
Bug description:
SRU:
* SRU: LP: #2076024: Build with -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
* Build loong64 packages on arm64 and ppc64el.
* ld.bfd, ld.gold: When no package-metadata option is given, fall-back
to the envvar ELF_PACKAGE_METADATA.
The first one enables the -fno-omit-frame-pointer flag on the
architectures where it is the default.
The second one just builds packages which are already built on other
architectures on two more architectues.
The third patch is a no-op, because ELF_PACKAGE_DATA is not set by
default anywhere in noble. It gets used by the cross compiler
packages to set the correct package name. Without it, cross compiler
packages would look like being built from the gcc-N packages, not the
gcc-N-cross packages.
These changes were part of a test rebuild of the main component on all
architectures, with results at
https://people.canonical.com/~ginggs/ftbfs-report/test-rebuild-20240912-noble-tc-noble.html
https://people.canonical.com/~ginggs/ftbfs-report/test-rebuild-20240912-noble-noble.html
The first one is built with all proposed changes to the binutils, GCC,
LLVM and Python packages, the second one is a reference test rebuild
with unmodified release and updates pockets.
Comparing these, we find one progression, and some regressions.
- urwid, progression. builds with the updated packages, fails in the noble
archive. Not further investigated.
- linux-* (11 packages). This is LP: #2081797, a configuration issue based
on a GCC version. The fixed compiler already is in the noble release, but
still identifies as 13.2.0. The kernel team is aware of that, and makes
the fix of the next upload.
A test build with the fix worked fine, and survived a reboot on an amd64
laptop.
- gcc-14 fails in the archive, but is part of the planned updates. This is
caused by some gnat 64bit time_t fixes.
- bpftrace is a build failure seen with the LLVM 18.1.8 update, however caused
by some underlinking in bpftrace. The proposed fix should be SRU'd together
with the LLVM update.
- There are some Python related failures, which still need to be investigated.
These have to be addressed before the Python SRUs (doing that later than
the binutils, GCC and LLVM updates). These are heat, pydantic,
python-oslo-config, python-xmlschema and walinuxagent
The packages proposed as SRUs don't show regressions in their
testsuites which are run during the builds.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/2076024/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
