First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 137557
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Crypto team <crypto@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>
Add CC:
CC:
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 137557 depends on: Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 137557 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)







View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2006-06-22 03:58 0000 
per subject, i tested it on 2.6.17 and it compiles fine (current version in
portage doesn't).

------- Comment #1 From PaX Team 2006-06-22 04:01:40 0000 ------- 
forgot to add, the patch for removing 'inline' is no longer needed, the ebuild
can be simplified by removing src_unpack altogether.

------- Comment #2 From Daniel Black 2006-06-30 05:19:00 0000 ------- 
thankyou kindly.

If there is an easier way to deal with stack protector symbols in libgmp that
you know of off hand thats really easy just let me know.

Anything more that a single line to force an additional symbol is probably too
much.

------- Comment #3 From PaX Team 2006-06-30 05:55:59 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #2)
> If there is an easier way to deal with stack protector symbols in libgmp that
> you know of off hand thats really easy just let me know.
> 
> Anything more that a single line to force an additional symbol is probably too
> much.

uhm, what's the issue with libgmp and ssp? also, it'd probably be better to
discuss that in another bug or in email ;-).

------- Comment #4 From Daniel Black 2006-06-30 06:31:01 0000 ------- 
> uhm, what's the issue with libgmp and ssp? also, it'd probably be better to
> discuss that in another bug or in email ;-).
> 
quite right - bug 138579
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug