Would a reasonable feature request be to use the glsa ID in a URI instead 
of a stand alone thing? I was unaware such an alert existed so did not 
recognize what GLSA meant.

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Charles Allen wrote:
>
> Spot on!
> Actually the thing that's getting pulled in requires subversion. I think 
> for both building and running, but I can check deeper if its just 
> compiling. Is it possible to have a DEPEND but not RDEPEND on subversion?
>
> Thanks for the prompt response.
>
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-7, David Michael wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Charles Allen <[email protected]> 
>> wrote: 
>> > I looked at the following websites: 
>> > 
>> > https://coreos.com/os/docs/latest/sdk-modifying-coreos.html 
>> > 
>> https://coreos.com/os/docs/latest/sdk-tips-and-tricks.html#add-new-upstream-package
>>  
>> > 
>> > But when I get to where I have the new ebuild under 
>> > ~/trunk/src/third_party/coreos-overlay I can't ./build_packages or else 
>> I 
>> > get the following cryptic error: 
>> > 
>> > This system is affected by the following GLSAs: 
>> > 201610-05 
>> > The above GLSAs apply to /build/amd64-usr 
>> > ERROR   build_packages: script called: build_packages (args unknown, no 
>> debug available) 
>> > ERROR   build_packages: Backtrace:  (most recent call is last) 
>> > ERROR   build_packages:   file build_packages, line 68, called: 
>> die_err_trap 'return $returncode' '1' 
>> > ERROR   build_packages: 
>> > ERROR   build_packages: Command failed: 
>> > ERROR   build_packages:   Command 'return $returncode' exited with 
>> nonzero 
>> > code: 1 
>> > 
>> > How can I figure out what caused this failure? 
>>
>> It is telling you that you have the security vulnerability at 
>> https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201610-05 , so I assume your changes 
>> are incorrectly pulling subversion into the image.  It is not normally 
>> installed, so the old version shouldn't matter.  The new ebuild 
>> probably has a USE=svn flag that should be disabled. 
>>
>> Thanks. 
>>
>> David 
>>
>

Reply via email to