{lang}[*] include zlib as a dependency in all Tcl easyconfigs (WIP)#1344
{lang}[*] include zlib as a dependency in all Tcl easyconfigs (WIP)#1344boegel merged 5 commits intoeasybuilders:developfrom
Conversation
|
Test FAILed. |
|
looks fine but maybe a more permanent solution is to add it to the toolchain? |
|
@wpoely86: that's a can of worms that we have to tackle carefully... but it's worth looking into, especailly for the common toolchains |
|
No bigger can of worms then adding as a dep on all kinds of easyconfigs? |
|
@wpoely86: I'm not sure... pushing zlib under GCC, or even binutils, is a lot lower in the stack, and affects everything being built with it |
|
well, they now silently fall back to system zlib. It's gonna give a lot more of |
|
We can/should certainly look into this, but pulling zlib into the toolchain should also involve binutils, maybe even glibc (and more?)... Other common candidates are ncurses, libreadline, ... |
|
Definitely not glibc. That's a real can of worms. And the same reasoning behind openssl also holds here (see GHOST). Anyway, we should probably open a dedicated bug report for that? |
|
@wpoely86: this one? easybuilders/easybuild-framework#644 |
|
Yes, and now actually do it 😃 |
|
@wpoely86: Jenkins should be giving this a green light soon, last check? Good to go in? |
|
Test PASSed. |
|
looks fine |
|
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
|
Test report by @boegel |
|
Updated to include recent Tcl easyconfigs, and to fix remarks. Thanks for the review @wpoely86! |
{lang}[*] include zlib as a dependency in all Tcl easyconfigs (WIP)
this syncs up existing easyconfigs like was done by @gjbex in #1340
the unit tests will check whether any conflicts were introduced at all (but I don't think there are)
@gjbex, @wpoely86: please review?