Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
21 Oct 2024 | ||
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @luckytethys:matrix.orgI think it would be nice if we didn't have to duplicate functionality from binutils-unwrapped-all-targets, and just have gas packages for the different architectures. If it ends up being infeasible then we can probably make multiple binutils packages work, but I think it would be much better not to now that I know binutils-unwrapped-all-targets existts. | 15:39:32 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @luckytethys:matrix.org* | 15:39:37 |
Tethys Svensson | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space Most of the code is 5-10 years old. ~60% written by a previous maintainer who's now deceased, ~20% written by current maintainers, ~10% written by me (all of it in 2014). It's a lot of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" code. I can give it a shot, but I am not sure if the current maintainers would be that happy to accept the patches | 15:41:47 |
emily | it doesn't seem like it should be disproportionately more maintenance effort to build the objdump s, right? I guess ld.bfd might be another story | 15:44:22 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org Right, but then we have stuff duplicated by packages, and it's also unclear then what these packages even are. Some but not all of binutils? If they're just gas that's a lot clearer. | 15:45:16 |
emily | it could just be all of binutils :) I feel like having an override for the binutils target that just works would be nice in general | 15:45:41 |
emily | (assuming that it does in fact just work) | 15:45:44 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @luckytethys:matrix.orgWe could patch in Nixpkgs — probably makes more sense than tailoring our packages to pwntools' needs specifically rather than based on binutils' actual capabilities. | 15:46:02 |
Tethys Svensson | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.spaceOh, in that case it would be a lot easier. That might be feasible. | 15:46:54 |
emily | like, there's going to be more software that just wants a conventional single-target binutils for a certain target, I imagine. embedded stuff or the like. | 15:47:20 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.orgMaybe, but as has been pointed out, that makes platform object checks complicated, and so I'm not sure they should all built in Nixpkgs when the only thing that isn't actually multi-target is gas. | 15:47:21 |
emily | fair enough (I must have missed the discussion re: platform object checks) | 15:48:06 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.orgI'd like to cross that bridge when we come to it, because until then we won't know whether it's actually needed vs a problem that should be fixed in that software rather than worked around in Nixpkgs. | 15:48:09 |
emily | maybe the all-targets binutils should just build all the as es. I guess that might make the derivation awkward though. | 15:48:32 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @luckytethys:matrix.org | 15:48:36 |
emily | ah, right. | 15:48:55 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.orgHmm, maybe | 15:49:15 |
emily | does it build an as at all right now? | 15:49:29 |
emily | if so, that seems somewhat awkward | 15:49:37 |
Alyssa Ross | I believe it'll build an as for targetPlatform | 15:50:09 |
Alyssa Ross | In reply to @luckytethys:matrix.orgPlease do try to upstream it though! | 15:50:24 |
emily | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.spaceright. which seems… misleading | 15:50:56 |
emily | given that you are asking for all the targets, and probably expect targetPlatform to be irrelevant | 15:51:11 |
Alyssa Ross | Yes, I agree. | 15:51:18 |
emily | which is an argument for building all the as es in that package IMO | 15:51:20 |
Alyssa Ross | Possibly | 15:51:26 |
Alyssa Ross | There's also something to be said for doing what upstream does | 15:51:50 |
Alyssa Ross | But you may be right that that would make more sense overall. | 15:51:58 |
emily | I'm guessing that what upstream does is mostly not expect people to do this | 15:52:17 |
jh-devv 🏳️⚧️ | How do I add the binaries in from the image in | 16:02:03 |