Summary: | app-backup/attic-0.16-r1 : attic/crypto.c:838:18: error: field ctx has incomplete type | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Toralf Förster <toralf> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Anthony Basile <blueness> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | treecleaner, via-gentoo |
Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | PATCH |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://github.com/jborg/attic/pull/399 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 869101 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 592438 | ||
Attachments: |
emerge-info.txt
app-backup:attic-0.16-r1:20190107-202734.log emerge-history.txt environment etc.portage.tbz2 temp.tbz2 Attic compatibility patch for OpenSSL 1.1 (to be put in FILESDIR) Diff between attic-0.16-r1.ebuild and the one using the patch |
Description
Toralf Förster
2019-01-07 20:54:43 UTC
Created attachment 560262 [details]
emerge-info.txt
Created attachment 560264 [details]
app-backup:attic-0.16-r1:20190107-202734.log
Created attachment 560266 [details]
emerge-history.txt
Created attachment 560268 [details]
environment
Created attachment 560270 [details]
etc.portage.tbz2
Created attachment 560272 [details]
temp.tbz2
Created attachment 562096 [details, diff]
Attic compatibility patch for OpenSSL 1.1 (to be put in FILESDIR)
I have just developed a patch for attic, so it is compatible with OpenSSL 1.1 . But, as I do not encrypt the backups, I cannot test whether it works as it is expected.
Created attachment 562098 [details, diff]
Diff between attic-0.16-r1.ebuild and the one using the patch
Thanks for also filing this upstream, alas with no response so far. (In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #9) > Thanks for also filing this upstream, alas with no response so far. I'm a bit worried about including this patch without testing. I was able to build and run attic with this patch. I have an old attic repository, and I was able to access it (be mounting with SSHFS) just fine. I used "list", "info", and even "create". So I can affirm that basic operations do work; although I don't know if the operations that I tested actually involve the patched piece of code. Dear treecleaner@: I'm still able to reproduce this issue right now. Since it has not been fixed for a long time, I'd suggest to evaluate if it is the case to remove this package from the tree. Thanks How about applying a patch that fixes the error, instead? The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=32fe1fba3a9fe5c08fadfad0a71b12822ffa309e commit 32fe1fba3a9fe5c08fadfad0a71b12822ffa309e Author: Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-10-07 20:05:42 +0000 Commit: Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-10-07 20:10:11 +0000 app-backup/attic: treeclean Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/869101 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/674822 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/830291 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/832240 Signed-off-by: Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> app-backup/attic/Manifest | 1 - app-backup/attic/attic-0.16-r1.ebuild | 38 ----------------------------------- app-backup/attic/attic-9999.ebuild | 38 ----------------------------------- app-backup/attic/metadata.xml | 11 ---------- profiles/package.mask | 7 ------- 5 files changed, 95 deletions(-) |