Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 405973 - sys-process/lsof: please review Prefix changes
Summary: sys-process/lsof: please review Prefix changes
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo/Alt
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Prefix Support (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo's Team for Core System packages
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: PATCH
Depends on:
Blocks: prefix-gx86
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2012-02-26 23:35 UTC by Dan Wallis
Modified: 2020-12-13 12:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
svn diff of simplified ebuild (lsof-prefix-changes-v4.84.patch,1.43 KB, text/plain)
2012-02-26 23:35 UTC, Dan Wallis
Details
Proposed patch (lsof-prefix-changes-to-gx86.patch,9.70 KB, patch)
2012-02-26 23:36 UTC, Dan Wallis
Details | Diff
Proposed patch (lsof-prefix-changes-to-gx86.patch,2.33 KB, patch)
2012-02-26 23:44 UTC, Dan Wallis
Details | Diff
Updated patch (lsof-prefix.diff,1.97 KB, patch)
2012-04-11 14:35 UTC, Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED)
Details | Diff
Updated patch (lsof-prefix.diff,1.96 KB, patch)
2012-04-13 09:37 UTC, Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED)
Details | Diff
diff for gx86, containing aixgcc patch as reported upstream (lsof-prefix.diff,4.78 KB, patch)
2012-04-24 12:10 UTC, Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED)
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dan Wallis 2012-02-26 23:35:33 UTC
Created attachment 303427 [details]
svn diff of simplified ebuild

I'm new to this, so any suggestions I propose will definitely need to be checked by someone in-the-know.

Looking through bug 278831, it seems that several attempts to avoid user-interaction were attempted, and when a solution was found, the failed attempts weren't reverted. If the attached patch (lsof-prefix-changes-v4.84.patch) is okay, can it be committed and tested?

Provided that the cleaner ebuild is acceptable (and works!), the second attached patch (lsof-prefix-changes-to-gx86.patch) might be enough to merge these changes back into mainline Gentoo. Please can this be reviewed too?
Comment 1 Dan Wallis 2012-02-26 23:36:28 UTC
Created attachment 303429 [details, diff]
Proposed patch
Comment 2 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2012-02-26 23:39:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created attachment 303429 [details, diff] [details, diff]
> Proposed patch

Hate to ask for another patch submission, but don't bother with old versions, only look at the very latest.
Comment 3 Dan Wallis 2012-02-26 23:44:23 UTC
Created attachment 303431 [details, diff]
Proposed patch

(In reply to comment #2)
> Hate to ask for another patch submission, but don't bother with old versions,
> only look at the very latest.

No problem. :)  Thanks for the tip.
Comment 4 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2012-03-07 03:37:52 UTC
base-system: I've reviewed the proposed patch for lsof-4.85-r2. LGTM.
Comment 5 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2012-04-10 02:44:16 UTC
Comment on attachment 303431 [details, diff]
Proposed patch

the patch doesn't make sense.  we run Configure with -n which means Customize won't be run.  ignoring that, patches don't go in src_unpack ... that's what src_prepare for.

if AIX has such a broken `ar`, why don't just `export AR=...` in the profile ?
Comment 6 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-04-11 14:35:41 UTC
Created attachment 308521 [details, diff]
Updated patch

Actually I've been unable to build lsof on AIX since lsof-4.76, and even 4.84 has compiler errors still.

But indeed lsof-4.85 does work again on AIX (5.3 at least), without any extra patch.
Comment 7 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2012-04-12 22:33:21 UTC
Comment on attachment 308521 [details, diff]
Updated patch

for target(), please indent the cases at the same level:
   case ${CTARGET} in
   *pattern*) ...
   esac

what's with the -Wl,-bnolibpath flag ?
Comment 8 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-04-13 09:37:10 UTC
Created attachment 308751 [details, diff]
Updated patch

> what's with the -Wl,-bnolibpath flag ?

AIX ld adds -L arguments to the runpath, and -bnolibpath avoids that.
Actually it is triggered by the QA notice about insecure RUNPATH's (./lib).
Comment 9 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2012-04-23 15:56:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)

isn't that something you should be adding to the profile then ?  i can't see adding this to every ebuild that has -L to local $S paths being a solution.
Comment 10 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-04-24 12:10:46 UTC
Created attachment 309911 [details, diff]
diff for gx86, containing aixgcc patch as reported upstream

(In reply to comment #9)
There's no point in having -bnolibpath in general env, as build systems (libtool and others) usually take care of this - even lsof does, but not for gcc yet.

Using ${PN}-4.85 for the patchfile in the ebuild is because it applies to lsof-4.86 too.

I've reported this aixgcc patch to lsof-maintainer <abe at purdue dot edu> right now (at 2012-04-24 14:03 +0200).
Comment 11 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-04-24 14:12:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)
> I've reported this aixgcc patch to lsof-maintainer <abe at purdue dot edu>
> right now (at 2012-04-24 14:03 +0200).

Hmm, upstream stopped AIX support with lsof-4.86 (just FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS/X and Solaris still), and won't accept patches for other platforms at all any more.
What to do now?
Comment 12 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2012-04-25 03:02:09 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)

can't say i'm keen on maintaining large patches for targets upstream doesn't care about ... maybe if you want to shovel it all into a patch that lsof would download and apply when ${CTARGET} == *aix*, i wouldn't care.
Comment 13 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-04-25 06:56:32 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)

Basically agreed. However, right now I won't call the patch "large" yet...

Still usual for prefix: When a minor platform's patch breaks, comment it out -
when I find time to, I'll update and reconsider creating a patch repo.

Also, I won't mind to apply it conditionally - as it would be with downloading. However, downloading with $PV would need to update that tarball upon revbump too.
Comment 14 Sergey Popov gentoo-dev 2013-01-23 09:52:39 UTC
ping

apart from AIX issue, is there something that blocks merging patch into lsof ebuild?
Comment 15 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2013-04-27 10:12:03 UTC
Commit message: Update to EAPI=4 and merge some random prefix changes
http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-process/lsof/lsof-4.87-r1.ebuild?rev=1.1
Comment 16 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2016-12-07 17:03:11 UTC
can you guys rebase onto 4.89-r1 so we can see what's left ?
Comment 17 Benda Xu gentoo-dev 2016-12-12 00:57:38 UTC
It works on Prefix of linux arches.

I lost access to aix systems, so cannot test it for ppc-aix.
Comment 18 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2016-12-14 10:20:25 UTC
Until I can recheck if comment#11 still applies: Can we please keep 4.85 in tree for ~ppc-aix only?
Comment 19 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2016-12-14 18:33:23 UTC
4.85 isn't in the tree anymore, and prefix has their own overlay already, so seems like stuffing an old version for one prefix system makes more sense to do in the prefix overlay ?
Comment 20 Fabian Groffen gentoo-dev 2016-12-14 18:37:01 UTC
Yup, no problem, we'll keep 4.85
Comment 21 Sam James archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2020-12-13 12:25:38 UTC
It's not in the overlay anymore! \o/

(since 2017: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/proj/prefix.git/commit/?id=99734bd4c071093834c45dba78d3c109598273f9).