--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078BD6DE0AD1\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 07:04:21 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0.647\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.467, \r
+ DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,\r
+ FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01,\r
+ RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id dWANKlKbWxFI for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Mon, 6 Jul 2015 07:04:15 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (mail-wg0-f51.google.com\r
+ [74.125.82.51]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9136A6DE0AC7 for\r
+ <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 07:04:14 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by wgqq4 with SMTP id q4so141480751wgq.1\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT)\r
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;\r
+ h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references\r
+ :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to\r
+ :user-agent; bh=i6VGD8G/dKMIXgt2OQvmCRRn4ASab1UwLiRelcJMo/8=;\r
+ b=ANt1r6np4LNagbaviP8fpxN3XXFfi+aS0ngQfOhc5ER7xLVsj81wmP+sRdH23XQgze\r
+ OODx42psZEs4hGycYBdNWWuut5t+GH7Cp8Ph/tEU927b77lnIWzw/1GcOa7Ck7s+qqvH\r
+ 5auOjXgT3v96nptjK+ZVb9E0krKcDeqxRelRaNaszRjSCO9Fs2YWlctDfjhdtai/EXUU\r
+ O/umnUBHapQgbE037fUejuYkmjNGcekL5LfS3YGA0TLJht3VE5Hzi3cQjG/9AAf+Msf5\r
+ deCqZnegmZcc4SPmMzmkrTlUbCORWyKEYRWeYQbMYQ4RLjEOmIGwFIsuj0S7V5G4ADlc\r
+ 2EPg==\r
+X-Received: by 10.180.23.66 with SMTP id k2mr90590376wif.85.1436191452382;\r
+ Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from chitra.no-ip.org ([2001:610:120:3001:2ad2:44ff:fe4a:b029])\r
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wx9sm28331660wjb.6.2015.07.06.07.04.11\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);\r
+ Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:04:11 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Sender: Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu@gmail.com>\r
+Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:04:10 +0200\r
+From: Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>\r
+To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: notmuch release 0.20.2 now available\r
+Message-ID: <20150706140410.GB4079@chitra.no-ip.org>\r
+Mail-Followup-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+References: <87h9pplqer.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+ <20150630063942.GM24926@chitra.no-ip.org>\r
+ <87a8vhlkdv.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+ <20150630084018.GO24926@chitra.no-ip.org>\r
+ <87r3otjfib.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+Content-Disposition: inline\r
+In-Reply-To: <87r3otjfib.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 14:04:21 -0000\r
+\r
+Hi David,\r
+\r
+First, apologies for the delay. I had a bicycle accident, still\r
+recovering.\r
+\r
+On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:02:52PM +0200, David Bremner wrote:\r
+> Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com> writes:\r
+> \r
+> > Yes, I have looked at what the official packages[1] do, I do exactly the\r
+> > same[2]. Essentially the spec file does the following:\r
+> >\r
+> > pushd bindings/ruby\r
+> > ruby extconf.rb --vendor --with-cflags="%{optflags}"\r
+> > make %{?_smp_mflags}\r
+> > popd\r
+> \r
+> I think the problem is contained in the original message. Since we want\r
+> to create a shared library "notmuch.so" for ruby to import, we need to\r
+> compile the C files in bindings/ruby with -fPIC.\r
+> \r
+> I don't know if this is Debian specific, or ruby version specific, but\r
+> on my Debian Jessie machine with ruby 2.1, the generated Makefile\r
+> bindings/ruby/Makefile has\r
+> \r
+> CFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat\r
+> -Werror=format-security -fPIC $(ARCH_FLAG)\r
+> \r
+> in it\r
+> \r
+> even when invoked outside the notmuch build system; e.g.\r
+> \r
+> % cd bindings/ruby && ruby extconf.rb\r
+> \r
+> I guess the first step is to see if the -fPIC flag is also there on\r
+> Fedora, and if not, why not. If I look at the builds for 0.19 [1]\r
+> it seems it is. But notice there it is not required to pass it in to "--with-cflags"\r
+\r
+Indeed. I looked at the generated Makefiles, they like below:\r
+\r
+--- nm-0.20.2.mk 2015-07-06 15:11:26.138317221 +0200\r
++++ nm-master.mk 2015-07-06 15:41:14.929951640 +0200\r
+@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@\r
+ debugflags = -ggdb3\r
+ warnflags = -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-parentheses -Wno-long-long -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wunused-variable -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wno-packed-bitfield-compat\r
+ CCDLFLAGS = -fPIC\r
+-CFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic $(ARCH_FLAG)\r
++CFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -mtune=generic -fPIC $(ARCH_FLAG)\r
+ INCFLAGS = -I. -I../../lib -I$(arch_hdrdir) -I$(hdrdir)/ruby/backward -I$(hdrdir) -I$(srcdir)\r
+ DEFS = \r
+ CPPFLAGS = $(DEFS) $(cppflags)\r
+\r
+So actually, the master version gets the -fPIC flag. But it should be\r
+redundant, since CCDLFLAGS is already set to -fPIC. Now when I compare\r
+the corresponding compile commands, I see (you also noticed that in the\r
+logs):\r
+\r
+0.20.2: gcc -I. -I../../lib -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -m64 -o message.o -c message.c\r
+master: gcc -I. -I../../lib -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -o message.o -c message.c\r
+\r
+So the trailing bits of the command is somehow dropped, and the\r
+CCDLFLAGS seems to be absent (see, no empty space either). I do not\r
+understand why that would be the case. I'll dig further when I can find\r
+some more time ...\r
+\r
+> [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/notmuch/0.19/1.fc21/data/logs/x86_64/build.log\r
+> - I couldn't find x86_64 build logs for 0.20 \r
+\r
+You can't, Fedora ships only 0.19. That's why I maintain the 0.20+ copr\r
+repository, for myself and other interested (invisible) users out there\r
+:-p. This gap was much wider in the past.\r
+\r
+Cheers,\r
+\r
+-- \r
+Suvayu\r
+\r
+Open source is the future. It sets us free.\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff