Summary: | app-portage/portage-utils-0.53: qsize fails w/musl due to undefined S_BLKSIZE | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | DaggyStyle <daggs> |
Component: | Tools | Assignee: | Portage Utils Team <portage-utils> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | gentoo, vapier |
Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | PATCH |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | hardened-devel repo, musl overlay | ||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 430702 | ||
Attachments: |
patch
patch v2 patch v3 patch v4 |
Description
DaggyStyle
2014-11-15 16:21:08 UTC
Created attachment 389418 [details, diff]
patch
It might be better to use DEV_BSIZE from <sys/param.h> instead of S_BLKSIZE. Seems to be more portable (in particular musl has it, too). POSIX at least mentions DEV_BSIZE as the size of the blocks corresponding to st_blocks on some implementations. Created attachment 389520 [details, diff]
patch v2
patch based on the suggestion given above
Created attachment 389528 [details, diff]
patch v3
This is rather what I meant. (No multiple declarations of S_BLKSIZE on platforms which have it.) Just polishing it up for upstream...
(In reply to Felix Janda from comment #4) > Created attachment 389528 [details, diff] [details, diff] > patch v3 > > This is rather what I meant. (No multiple declarations of S_BLKSIZE on > platforms which have it.) Just polishing it up for upstream... I blame my boss, he likes small patches as possible :) Comment on attachment 389520 [details, diff]
patch v2
look at libq/compat.c where it already hides the system layer junk. we do not want to pollute the various applets with this logic.
Created attachment 389642 [details, diff]
patch v4
Is patch v4 ok to be accepted? (In reply to Felix Janda from comment #8) > Is patch v4 ok to be accepted? let's get this in the overlay for now. please make a single commit against hardened-dev::musl overlay and upload the patch portage-utils is already in the overlay. (In reply to Felix Janda from comment #7) odd ... why is the patch against 0.9 ? at any rate, i've hand merged it into git: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=b990a48b85b71f94323120e50f2ba97958351a97 (In reply to SpanKY from comment #11) > (In reply to Felix Janda from comment #7) > > odd ... why is the patch against 0.9 ? > > at any rate, i've hand merged it into git: > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage-utils.git;a=commitdiff; > h=b990a48b85b71f94323120e50f2ba97958351a97 No idea. But for the records, in the overlay we have the patch against 0.53. We'll drop that once 0.54 rolls out. I had assumed that 0.9 was closer to git HEAD. (dunno why I didn't patch against git) Anyway thanks for the commit. it'll be in the next release *** Bug 551604 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |