mail

Re: [boinc_alpha] BOINC 7.0.44 released for all platforms.eml (text/plain), 6.52 KB, created by Toralf Förster on 2013-01-13 00:18:34 UTC

X-Account-Key: account1
X-UIDL: 0MXUzK-1TQvMW1nVu-00WTIR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Return-Path: [e-mail]
Received: from mail3.ssl.berkeley.edu ([128.32.13.253]) by mx-ha.gmx.net
 (mxgmx112) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MXUzK-1TQvMW1nVu-00WTIR for
 <[e-mail]>; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:14:22 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (70-36-134-223.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.134.223])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mail3.ssl.berkeley.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0CNDnvm012044
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:13:50 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:10:58 -0800
From: David Anderson <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9yYWxmIEbDtnJzdGVy?= <[e-mail]>
CC: Gianfranco Costamagna <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [boinc_alpha] BOINC 7.0.44 released for all platforms
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail3.ssl.berkeley.edu id r0CNDnvm012044
Envelope-To: <[e-mail]>
X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=V3;
X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
X-UI-Filterresults: ;V01:K0:D7I9M3+3kJA=:5uLKDaoM2UDbZOmuL/464YgsL3JTkHI
 R0Dl4yJuuxFK70I+9znqF6sifTBjT1qee9GUcscldUbYVLKZKlecdWLIeCP9ikprOngBg7f
 ZKZTmGdP2fGMi+xtWLBXgJqwDmVik/io7em5/qwwhCpD5qeHJQpxEKPVtyakRgzSJUVZeUz
 8g8xZ5N3tWDNsp0lnh40DjUHngT0abopCNq35lFo/ex/gYvDOfVerBR7N0I9+ytWEOinX53
 MkxJ99DjnNSxZEqXj2O1KDJxTMpBqGkN+hWQO/Gi+yN8VHUFD6f+Zvh6AC4SjvWPlTXEjly
 vKVwvHVfyXZN3o78lpC+Lj6PKtD16E86zOy0R5wsadIb6ZxObzvYCfDWY54OhgOjevC3hqY
 cTwrTIu/rcj76qRrg7H6MOLhpcTKusY7J0Mgg0hpqSWaukzIWtB9fr5d9J67B+xkj0npg2l
 bvBFLoZEwjOq0730EeEXnEghUSt7zZb/GO137or7L1ntU0pIBKe50tcVefY6YiBmutftn2b
 BxltyaWegbBCyfOnLTsGZSzko0aGUzGnvoQHAz7fyZoNO5hOS3GAHo9O8ettWxdFj8sWKB5
 Jq4GMzpUyGjtxi32auc9H8h3MiKJPR0nMt0NMilN6yeWviSUzGAD6BOZ1iFN52USkVFo47O
 3Zc1QC2nbypEZoF8yHCbDwL/i2qWYTifdLB2/fKMKc6yWNqIPr/Hx7ZxV5bQ0t4+1cRkbWm
 jzBKBdoV7zpEMtklqEpesS1ZJ6oo9xnb1bTtRaERIq44p/oedO6KWxo4t3VkTatU9zu2xnI
 t1jIEmycNqCU68xKJkb3ZZl5DJn+RbzYr38q7+FqRWCkO1AN1ww1lda86q87OxOe6m8bjWS
 OHC8xtYeItuLSYblezKpbNDa0m4ob7GvkAmCFZLcciTT+EXh4avIE+1lwmisnYPK3YZMWBa
 f+Zuyfwkk+aLT9HOsODZns2rluB2OxYMKx1pPlF1QkHE7xVbBEPzF65TtJJHXUwY87wHgrL
 S0h+ji21tkoA+U0+5U7saRhopCFgsDAbliGWiw6r/GaLsPnzGc1yzoG3L2EGRjVIv7Mn4o/
 03jhJtcHjSirIDXf4gHx6Z/nEd1dGci1M4UnMU9Ua7c/kNIkXbsHK9oAqb+todZuQQJwvVD
 qOttrvw2UrQTc84EwtmHmeWC3q81rEOjhEd8xryNFf7Lqk6h1aqPK3bEYqYxZlQEA0Xy1SY
 oXV6l7ZN6jxwGsv/Po8cSJpYhTeRy0rlw0baIbgm0/GbRsBmliC8GIeqiZ3KzDUIe7GpXKb
 xbcYIwDr48eTV4NKjBoDJ83RcQ0i7j5c3HJxXB2n+w604SqeN0vj+MvfF5DZhYDcp/vpseF
 L2LmOnQ42ZGwlCFBxEzP5u17iU1bKafVxXE3nGLj01Ph8/tOJ0oAfEYd43e4K79LVyJOOjr
 W/9qG3+uiRaY/ykn8SfmcnSlyk3OWB3xOljWwT7SV/c9vQP9J1uFrzjoWOf2NyZVMMXWYQm
 QKZTYthWhKh/Di26s//YE7Kqc56Dsj27GLYfEHJaZjRDaH6DXmpsGvosZXULQkSWzfrh4sT
 kMDj0iGgPjpJOZLDeuHKp8M4Q/vGK9lKZ+19xldz4pPnhSFYW0=

Why is this an issue?
The zip library is not used in the BOINC client or manager.

On 12-Jan-2013 2:04 PM, Toralf F=C3=B6rster wrote:
> On 01/11/2013 07:55 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>>      Gentoo's ebuild sstem is still complaining about this :
>>
>>      QA: other
>>      QA Notice: Package triggers severe warnings which indicate that i=
t
>>                may exhibit random runtime failures.
>>      ./zip/z_fileio.c:310:7: warning: implicit declaration of function
>>      'dosmatch' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>      ./zip/unix/z_unix.c:127:7: warning: implicit declaration of funct=
ion
>>      'dosmatch' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>      Please do not file a Gentoo bug and instead report the above QA
>>      issues directly to the upstream developers of this software.
>>      Homepage: http://boinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/
>>
>> Hi Toralf, zip seems to be mantained here [1] [2].
>>
>> upstream is not berkeley, so I might suggest to try the latest 3.0
>> version (if it complains anymore), and for upstream folks to update it=
 :)
>>
>> [1] ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/src/
>> [2] http://www.info-zip.org
>>
>> Gianfranco
>
> Hello,
>
> upstream answered :
> http://www.info-zip.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D6&t=3D407&e=3D0
>
> I'm copying that content here :
>
>
>> ./zip/z_fileio.c:310:7: warning: implicit declaration of function
>> 'dosmatch' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>> ./zip/unix/z_unix.c:127:7: warning: implicit declaration of function
>> 'dosmatch'
>
> Those "z_" prefixes on the file names are not ours, so I'll assume
> that they were added by someone to avoid collisions. Apparently, some
> other changes were also made to our code.
>
> Our "unix/unix.c" modules do not use dosmatch(), so we never see this
> compiler complaint. In the current code (and probably in older
> versions), dosmatch() is declared in "zip.h", but it's conditional on
> things like:
> # if defined(DOS) || defined(WIN32)
> because that's where we use it. If someone has changed our
> (dosmatch()-free) "fileio.c" or "unix/unix.c" to use dosmatch(), then h=
e
> should have changed the condition(s) on the prototype/declaration in
> "zip.h", too.
>
>> [...] report the above QA issues directly to the upstream developers
>> of this software.
>
> If you break it, it's yours. If there are some harmless changes
> which we could make in our code to make it easier to use in some other
> application, then we'd be happy to consider adding them, but we're
> probably not willing to rename all the source files, and someone would
> need to figure out what those changes really are. For example, adding a
> C macro like "DECLARE_DOSMATCH" to "zip.h" might be reasonable, if it
> would be helpful. But it might be wise to find all the changes which
> were made to the Info-ZIP code before trying to decide what should have
> been done instead.
>
>> [...] wondering whether those issues are fixed in versino 3.0
>
> Probably not, but any such problems seem to be yours, not ours. If
> you believe otherwise, we're always open to a good argument (with actua=
l
> evidence).
>