Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Martin G. <sou...@gl...> - 2003-12-26 16:57:39
|
Hi How does DL handle package dependencies? I found that the build will fail when certain packages are missing dependencies - for example: squid fails if LDAP is not selected, gcc fails if the gcc Stack Smashing Protector is not selected, etc. How is this or should this be resolved? Thanks Martin |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-12-26 17:16:17
|
Martin Glazer wrote: >How does DL handle package dependencies? > >I found that the build will fail when certain packages are missing >dependencies - for example: squid fails if LDAP is not selected, gcc fails if >the gcc Stack Smashing Protector is not selected, etc. > > Should not happen. >How is this or should this be resolved? > > Those are simply bugs in the build system which have to be resolved. I.e. for squid there must be a IF statement added, which adds LDAP support only when LDAP is selected. GCC must also work without the SSP selected. It would be great if you could help us out there and fix it. Heiko |
|
From: Martin G. <sou...@gl...> - 2003-12-26 17:41:04
|
On December 26, 2003 10:13 am, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Martin Glazer wrote: > >How does DL handle package dependencies? > > > >I found that the build will fail when certain packages are missing > >dependencies - for example: squid fails if LDAP is not selected, gcc fails > > if the gcc Stack Smashing Protector is not selected, etc. > > Should not happen. > > >How is this or should this be resolved? > > Those are simply bugs in the build system which have to be resolved. > I.e. for squid there must be a IF statement added, which adds LDAP > support only when LDAP is selected. > > GCC must also work without the SSP selected. > > It would be great if you could help us out there and fix it. Sure. I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the gcc issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation for the next month and will have limited access. Martin |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-12-26 18:01:16
|
Martin Glazer wrote: >On December 26, 2003 10:13 am, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > >>Martin Glazer wrote: >> >> >>>How does DL handle package dependencies? >>> >>>I found that the build will fail when certain packages are missing >>>dependencies - for example: squid fails if LDAP is not selected, gcc fails >>>if the gcc Stack Smashing Protector is not selected, etc. >>> >>> >>Should not happen. >> >> >> >>>How is this or should this be resolved? >>> >>> >>Those are simply bugs in the build system which have to be resolved. >>I.e. for squid there must be a IF statement added, which adds LDAP >>support only when LDAP is selected. >> >>GCC must also work without the SSP selected. >> >>It would be great if you could help us out there and fix it. >> >> > >Sure. > Cool thanks. >I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the gcc >issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation for the >next month and will have limited access. > > A full month vacation ? Lucky you ! Take your time, it's enough when you finish it by tonight. ;-) Heiko |
|
From: Martin G. <sou...@gl...> - 2003-12-26 19:06:59
|
On December 26, 2003 10:56 am, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Martin Glazer wrote: > >On December 26, 2003 10:13 am, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >>Martin Glazer wrote: > >>>How does DL handle package dependencies? > >>> > >>>I found that the build will fail when certain packages are missing > >>>dependencies - for example: squid fails if LDAP is not selected, gcc > >>> fails if the gcc Stack Smashing Protector is not selected, etc. > >> > >>Should not happen. > >> > >>>How is this or should this be resolved? > >> > >>Those are simply bugs in the build system which have to be resolved. > >>I.e. for squid there must be a IF statement added, which adds LDAP > >>support only when LDAP is selected. > >> > >>GCC must also work without the SSP selected. > >> > >>It would be great if you could help us out there and fix it. > > > >Sure. > > Cool thanks. > > >I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the > > gcc issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation > > for the next month and will have limited access. > > A full month vacation ? Lucky you ! Haven't been home for 5 years and with 2 days travel time each way, a month goes by pretty quickly... > > Take your time, it's enough when you finish it by tonight. ;-) > I'll talk to the pilot - explain the situation about me having to fix this stuff and see if they can make any exceptions about putting laptops away during take-off and landings. I'm sure they'll understand ;-) Martin |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-12-26 19:16:15
|
Martin Glazer wrote: >On December 26, 2003 10:56 am, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > >>Martin Glazer wrote: >> >> >>>On December 26, 2003 10:13 am, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Martin Glazer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>How does DL handle package dependencies? >>>>> >>>>>I found that the build will fail when certain packages are missing >>>>>dependencies - for example: squid fails if LDAP is not selected, gcc >>>>>fails if the gcc Stack Smashing Protector is not selected, etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Should not happen. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>How is this or should this be resolved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Those are simply bugs in the build system which have to be resolved. >>>>I.e. for squid there must be a IF statement added, which adds LDAP >>>>support only when LDAP is selected. >>>> >>>>GCC must also work without the SSP selected. >>>> >>>>It would be great if you could help us out there and fix it. >>>> >>>> >>>Sure. >>> >>> >>Cool thanks. >> >> >> >>>I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the >>>gcc issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation >>>for the next month and will have limited access. >>> >>> >>A full month vacation ? Lucky you ! >> >> > >Haven't been home for 5 years and with 2 days travel time each way, a month >goes by pretty quickly... > I can accept you "excuse". ;-) >>Take your time, it's enough when you finish it by tonight. ;-) >> >> >> > >I'll talk to the pilot - explain the situation about me having to fix this >stuff and see if they can make any exceptions about putting laptops away >during take-off and landings. I'm sure they'll understand ;-) > > Yes they will. Otherwise just tell them when they don't let you, you will explode. ;-) Heiko |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2003-12-26 18:03:03
|
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 10:41:08AM -0700, Martin Glazer wrote: > > I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the gcc > issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation for the > next month and will have limited access. i've never selected the stack protection issue on gcc and also have never had any problems (without it). has there been a recent change ? -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Martin G. <sou...@gl...> - 2003-12-26 18:12:44
|
On December 26, 2003 11:02 am, Diego Torres wrote: > On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 10:41:08AM -0700, Martin Glazer wrote: > > I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the > > gcc issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation > > for the next month and will have limited access. > > i've never selected the stack protection issue on gcc and also have never > had any problems (without it). I just tried this morning where I hadn't selected any of the security features and gcc failed to build because of the missing stack protector. Or at least that was the implication of the error message in the logs. I added the security options and now it is building happily away... > > has there been a recent change ? I noticed this happening a while ago as well, but hadn't had a chance to look into it further. Martin |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-12-26 18:21:16
|
Martin Glazer wrote: >On December 26, 2003 11:02 am, Diego Torres wrote: > > >>On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 10:41:08AM -0700, Martin Glazer wrote: >> >> >>>I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the >>>gcc issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation >>>for the next month and will have limited access. >>> >>> >>i've never selected the stack protection issue on gcc and also have never >>had any problems (without it). >> >> > >I just tried this morning where I hadn't selected any of the security features >and gcc failed to build because of the missing stack protector. Or at least >that was the implication of the error message in the logs. I added the >security options and now it is building happily away... > Hmm.... >>has there been a recent change ? >> >> > >I noticed this happening a while ago as well, but hadn't had a chance to look >into it further. > > When it happens again, then you can just post here the logfile. Heiko |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-12-26 18:16:21
|
Diego Torres wrote: >On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 10:41:08AM -0700, Martin Glazer wrote: > > >>I don't see a problem doing the squid fix, but I'll have to look into the gcc >>issue further. No promises on time though, as I'm going on vacation for the >>next month and will have limited access. >> >> > >i've never selected the stack protection issue on gcc and also have never had any problems (without it). > >has there been a recent change ? > > > The most reason change is that I added -pie support, for the creation of position independent executables. But this is only optional and doesn't affect the SSP. Heiko |
