New workaround for __brp_strip_static_archive being bad.
At some point the prior workaround for __brp_strip_static_archive breaking datestamps in .a libraries seems to have stopped working. This updates it with a new method. Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
ba7d7d749a
commit
142b2dd6ee
10
gnu-efi.spec
10
gnu-efi.spec
@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ BuildRequires: /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
# brp-strip-static-archive will senselessly /add/ timestamps and uid/gid
|
# brp-strip-static-archive will senselessly /add/ timestamps and uid/gid
|
||||||
# data to our .a and make them not multilib clean if we don't have this.
|
# data to our .a and make them not multilib clean if we don't have this.
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
|
# We used to redefine strip, like so:
|
||||||
|
# %% global __strip "%%{__strip} -p"
|
||||||
|
# And had this note:
|
||||||
# Note that if we don't have the shell quotes there, -p becomes $2 on its
|
# Note that if we don't have the shell quotes there, -p becomes $2 on its
|
||||||
# invocation, and so it completely ignores it.
|
# invocation, and so it completely ignores it.
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
@ -39,9 +43,13 @@ BuildRequires: /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h
|
|||||||
# uid/gid), strip(1) from binutils-2.25.1-22.base.el7.x86_64 throws a
|
# uid/gid), strip(1) from binutils-2.25.1-22.base.el7.x86_64 throws a
|
||||||
# syntax error.
|
# syntax error.
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
|
# But someone helpfully re-wrote %%__brp_strip_static_archive and that
|
||||||
|
# doesn't work any more.
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
# True story.
|
# True story.
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
%global __strip "%{__strip} -p"
|
%undefine __brp_strip_static_archive
|
||||||
|
%global __brp_strip_static_archive find '%{buildroot}' -name '*.a' -print -exec %{__strip} -gDp {} \\;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%description
|
%description
|
||||||
This package contains development headers and libraries for developing
|
This package contains development headers and libraries for developing
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user