[Buildroot] [PATCH v7 1/9] package/patchelf: add patch for rpath sanitization under a root directory

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

Am 20.07.2017 um 09:55 schrieb Arnout Vandecappelle:
> 
> 
> On 20-07-17 08:55, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Hello Arnout,
>>
>> Am 19.07.2017 um 23:08 schrieb Arnout Vandecappelle:
>>>    Hi Wolfgang,
>>>
>>> On 05-07-17 18:53, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>> The patch allows to use patchelf to sanitize the rpath of the buildroot
>>>> libraries and binaries using the option "--make-rpath-relative <rootdir>".
>>>> Recent versions of patchelf will not built on old Debian and RHEL systems
>>>> due to C++11 constructs. Therefore we stick with v0.9 for the time being.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg at grandegger.com>
>>>
>>>    I still have a bunch of comments, but they're solidly in the nitpicking
>>> category. We definitely want this series (or at least part of it) in
>>> 2017.08-rc1, so if you don't respin in time, it will be applied. In that case,
>>> however, feel free to fix my nitpicks in follow-up patches. That said:
>>
>> OK. I will concentrate on the important (and trivial) issues.
>>
>>> Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout at mind.be>
>>
>> Should I also add your "Acked-by" to the patchelf patches itself?
> 
>   No, not to the patchelf patches. That doesn't make sense, since it's
> meaningless for upstream, and for Buildroot the ack is already in the Buildroot
> patch.
> 
>   The Sob needs to be there because its meaning is different for the Buildroot
> patch and for the package patch. For the package patch, it means "I vouch that
> it's OK to distribute this change under the license of the package", and the
> license of the package is different from the license of Buildroot.

OK, makes sense.

>>
>>>> diff --git
>>>> a/package/patchelf/0001-Remove-apparently-incorrect-usage-of-static.patch
>>>> b/package/patchelf/0001-Remove-apparently-incorrect-usage-of-static.patch
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..eda32e8
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/package/patchelf/0001-Remove-apparently-incorrect-usage-of-static.patch
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
>>>> +From a365bcb7d7025da51b33165ef7ebc7180199a05e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> +From: Eelco Dolstra <eelco.dolstra at logicblox.com>
>>>> +Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:31:37 +0200
>>>> +Subject: [PATCH] Remove apparently incorrect usage of "static"
>>>
>>>    I was going to say: we don't really need this patch. However, we do need it
>>> because it removes the DT_INIT symbols from needed_libs (DT_INIT points to
>>> library initialisation function, not to needed libraries...). So perhaps that
>>> bit should be added to the patch message.
>>
>> Added to the [] comment. I think the original messages should bot be touched.
> 
>   ACK that.
> 
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +[Upstream-commit:
>>>> https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf/commit/a365bcb7d7025da51b33165ef7ebc7180199a05e]
>>>>
>>>> +Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg at grandegger.com>
>>>> +
>>>> +---
>>>> + src/patchelf.cc | 8 +++-----
>>>> + 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>> +
>>>> +Index: patchelf-0.9.old/src/patchelf.cc
>>>
>>>    Looks like you didn't really generate this with git-format-patch, although the
>>> header looks like it... It's not very important, but we really like to be able
>>> to regenerate exactly the same patches with the following procedure:
>>>
>>> cd patchelf
>>> git checkout -b buildroot 0.9
>>> git am ../buildroot/package/patchelf/*.patch
>>> git format-patch -N --no-renames -o ../buildroot/package/patchelf 0.9..
>>
>> This is generate with quilt against patchelf-0.9.tag.bz2. Will fix.
> 
>   Ah, that makes sense as well. Again, it's not very important. Do you find using
> quilt to manage package patches easier than using git?

Well, with both, "git rebase -i" and "quilt" you have to be careful not 
mixing up things. If I don't have git, I use quilt. I have now switched 
to git to maintain the patchelf patches.

Wolfgang.