Yes, that is correct.
On 2022年1月16日 at 17:46, PHO <pho%cielonegro.org@localhost
<mailto:pho%cielonegro.org@localhost>> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback. Just to be clear, PKGSRC_OVERRIDE_MKPIE=no
does what pkgsrc currently does, and PKGSRC_OVERRIDE_MKPIE=yes is a
request for an exemption right?
On 1/17/22 4:10 AM, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> I like the idea - perhaps call it PKGSRC_OVERRIDE_MKPIE? (i.e.
leading
> "PKGSRC_" and the s/AUTOMATIC/OVERRIDE/) - might be useful for
some of
> the other packages that require handholding in this area.
>
> On 2022年1月16日 at 05:18, PHO <pho%cielonegro.org@localhost
<mailto:pho%cielonegro.org@localhost>
> <mailto:pho%cielonegro.org@localhost <mailto:pho%cielonegro.org@localhost>>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While trying to update lang/ghc90 to 9.0.2 and also enabling
support
> for
> PKGSRC_MKPIE, I found the way how the current infrastructure
enforces
> MKPIE rather cumbersome for packages that need to bootstrap
from a
> pre-built bootkit.
>
> GHC bootkits consist of a compiler executable and the
standard Haskell
> library in the form of a set of static archives (lib*.a),
which may or
> may not be built with -fPIC. When lang/ghc90 is to be built, with
> MKPIE_SUPPORTED set to yes, one of these things will happen:
>
> 1. Bootkit is built without -fPIC, and PKGSRC_MKPIE is set to no.
>
> This builds non-PIE GHC fine.
>
> 2. Bootkit is built with -fPIC, and PKGSRC_MKPIE is set to yes.
>
> This builds PIE GHC fine (with some tweaks applied to
> lang/ghc90).
>
> 3. Bootkit is built without -fPIC but PKGSRC_MKPIE is set to yes.
>
> This fails to build the stage-1 compiler, which is an
> intermediate
> compiler to build the final, stage-2 compiler that will be
installed.
> This is because pkgsrc forces -pie to be passed to the linker
> regardless
> of compilation stages (because it doesn't know GHC does a 2-stage
> bootstrapping), but the stage-1 compiler needs to be linked
against
> static libraries coming from the non-PIC bootkit.
>
> 4. Bootkit is built with -fPIC but PKGSRC_MKPIE is set to no.
>
> This means we have no choice but to link a non-PIC stage-1
> compiler *.o against static libraries from the bootkit built with
> -fPIC.
> This apparently works, at least on NetBSD, but... you aren't
> supposed to
> do that right? I don't know if this works on all the platforms we
> currently support.
>
> So, in order for packages like GHC to support MKPIE, we need
a way to
> tell pkgsrc that we are going to build PIE on our own
responsibility
> but
> not getting enforced by the infrastructure, such as injecting
-pic in
> linker flags, on per-package basis. But this of course means
packages
> that request an exemption from the enforcement can
accidentally install
> non-PIE, so a post-build check is desired.
>
> The attached patch introduces a new package-settable variable
> AUTOMATIC_MKPIE and a new check mentioned above. What do you
think? Can
> I commit this?
>