Summary: | sys-auth/sssd-1.16.3-r3 USE=samba - ? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Adam Purkrt <adam> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | alexxy, bkohler |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 699864 | ||
Bug Blocks: | |||
Attachments: |
build.log.gz
0001-sys-auth-sssd-1.16.4-version-bump.patch |
Description
Adam Purkrt
2020-02-14 16:34:01 UTC
Can you test with latest sssd? This stable sssd is pretty ancient and seems to be affected by several other bugs as well. (In reply to Ben Kohler from comment #1) > Can you test with latest sssd? This stable sssd is pretty ancient and seems > to be affected by several other bugs as well. As I have written "The unstable version sys-auth/sssd-2.2.3 builds fine with USE=samba." Fails to compile how? Please attach the entire build log to this bug report. Created attachment 613768 [details]
build.log.gz
The error itself is:
src/providers/ad/ad_gpo_ndr.c: In function ‘ndr_pull_dom_sid’:
src/providers/ad/ad_gpo_ndr.c:261:48: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ARRAY_SIZE’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
261 | if (r->num_auths < 0 || r->num_auths > ARRAY_SIZE(r->sub_auths)) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
I missed your comment about 2.2.3. The old stable sssd-1.16.3 is definitely broken against new samba. This will probably get fixed with stabilization of 2.2.x for bug 699864. Created attachment 613868 [details, diff]
0001-sys-auth-sssd-1.16.4-version-bump.patch
Here is a version bump to 1.16.4. This version which compiles fine with net-fs/samba-4.11.6-r2.
Though I get that 1.16.4 has a security flaw. Sorry for a futile patch. I have changed my mind and think that the package sys-auth/sssd should be removed from the gentoo main repository. The ancient version, you mean? Ancient is indeed now gone. |