Thread: [Integrit-devel] integrit patches
Brought to you by:
ecashin
Menu
▾
▴
integrit-devel
|
From: Yuri D'E. <wa...@yu...> - 2005-09-10 15:44:43
Attachments:
integrit.diff.gz
|
Following a private conversation with Ed L. Cashin, I'm posting here some patches against integrit (from cvs) for inspection. In integrit.diff.gz: - configure.in: Added some checks whether -static (or other flags) can be used. Under at least OSX (and possibly open darwin) -static cannot be used. This patch fix the build on those systems. - elcwft.c: reorganized the walk loop. Ignored directories are now _really_ ignored (that is, no more "cannot open directory"). - gnupg/md5.c: fixed broken macro for big endian systems under certain compilers. - other fixes: Assume checksums to be unsigned char as required by gnupg/* (eliminates a dozen of warnings). Side note: config.h.in/configure files should be probably removed from the cvs. Thanks |
|
From: Ed L. C. <ec...@gm...> - 2005-09-13 01:05:54
|
On 9/10/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote: > Following a private conversation with Ed L. Cashin, I'm posting here > some patches against integrit (from cvs) for inspection. Hey, Chris. I applied Yuri's patches tonight. I have=20 been feeling a bit guilty about failing to do a release back when you did your changes in March, but now I *really* needed to get something out. I'm about out of time tonight and I notice that the changes you made aren't recorded in the Changes file. I'm going to release anyway, but do you think=20 you'd mind updating that file in CVS? I'm simplifying the version numbering to reflect my current light touch administration of the project. I'm dropping the patch number from "3.04.00" and the "-beta" that I used to put on releases that hadn't been used much. --=20 Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...> |
|
From: Chris J. <cb...@ca...> - 2005-09-13 16:19:30
|
OK Ed, I've updated the Changes file (in chronological order, before Yuri's change) to reflect my March 23rd commit. To answer your other question: no, the database format did not change. It already contains a 'struct stat' and an SHA-1 checksum string. I just use them differently for comparisons. Chris Ed L. Cashin wrote: >On 9/10/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote: > > >>Following a private conversation with Ed L. Cashin, I'm posting here >>some patches against integrit (from cvs) for inspection. >> >> > >Hey, Chris. I applied Yuri's patches tonight. I have >been feeling a bit guilty about failing to do a release >back when you did your changes in March, but now >I *really* needed to get something out. > >I'm about out of time tonight and I notice that the >changes you made aren't recorded in the Changes >file. I'm going to release anyway, but do you think >you'd mind updating that file in CVS? > >I'm simplifying the version numbering to reflect my >current light touch administration of the project. I'm >dropping the patch number from "3.04.00" and the >"-beta" that I used to put on releases that hadn't >been used much. > > > |
|
From: Ed L. C. <ec...@gm...> - 2005-09-13 16:32:17
|
On 9/13/05, Chris Johns <cb...@ca...> wrote: > OK Ed, I've updated the Changes file (in chronological order, before > Yuri's change) to reflect my March 23rd commit. >=20 > To answer your other question: no, the database format did not change. > It already contains a 'struct stat' and an SHA-1 checksum string. I just > use them differently for comparisons. Oh, great. I'll just release the current CVS as 3.05 as soon as I can. =20 If anybody can do testing on 3.04 before that, it=20 would be very helpful, because fixes could then be incorporated into 3.05. --=20 Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...> |
|
From: Jos B. <jo...@ca...> - 2005-09-13 17:37:42
|
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:32:03PM -0400, Ed L. Cashin wrote: > On 9/13/05, Chris Johns <cb...@ca...> wrote: > > OK Ed, I've updated the Changes file (in chronological order, before > > Yuri's change) to reflect my March 23rd commit. > > > > To answer your other question: no, the database format did not change. > > It already contains a 'struct stat' and an SHA-1 checksum string. I just > > use them differently for comparisons. > > Oh, great. I'll just release the current CVS as 3.05 > as soon as I can. > > If anybody can do testing on 3.04 before that, it > would be very helpful, because fixes > could then be incorporated into 3.05. Fwiw: 3.0.4 builds cleanly without warnings on both recent FreeBSD 4-stable and FreeBSD HEAD. This is on i386; I know it doesn't build on sparc64 but I have no means of testing it on that platform. I guess I could ask the ports people what the problems are. -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com |
|
From: Ed L. C. <ec...@gm...> - 2005-09-13 18:12:34
|
On 9/13/05, Jos Backus <jo...@ca...> wrote: ... > Fwiw: 3.0.4 builds cleanly without warnings on both recent FreeBSD 4-stab= le > and FreeBSD HEAD. This is on i386; I know it doesn't build on sparc64 but= I > have no means of testing it on that platform. I guess I could ask the por= ts > people what the problems are. Thanks! Did you notice that integrit is still recursively descending the filesystem correctly? That's the part that was modified recently. --=20 Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...> |
|
From: Jos B. <jo...@ca...> - 2005-09-13 18:38:22
|
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:12:14PM -0400, Ed L. Cashin wrote: > On 9/13/05, Jos Backus <jo...@ca...> wrote: > ... > > Fwiw: 3.0.4 builds cleanly without warnings on both recent FreeBSD 4-stable > > and FreeBSD HEAD. This is on i386; I know it doesn't build on sparc64 but I > > have no means of testing it on that platform. I guess I could ask the ports > > people what the problems are. > > Thanks! Did you notice that integrit is still > recursively descending the filesystem correctly? > That's the part that was modified recently. I ran `test/test' which says that everything's fine. Do you think that is a sufficient guarantee that recursively descending the filesystem still works correctly? -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X