On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:07:33PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Package: xfsprogs
> > Version: 2.6.26-1
> > Severity: grave
> 
> > This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
> > executable stack, while a unstable build does not do that.
> 
> I've uploaded recompile-only binNMUs for each of attr, acl, and xfsprogs on
> i386, which is the only architecture that should be affected.

Thanks Steve.  Not sure it worked out for xfsprogs, there was
already a subsequent version queued.  I have recompiled latest
xfsprogs with the currente gcc, which I had to install "by hand"
(apt-get upgrade wouldn't get it)... must be some interdependency
issue with some packages here?, cos even this morning I'm seeing
gcc being held back via "apt-get upgrade":

Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  abiword abiword-common base-config build-essential bzflag bzflag-server chbg
  cpp debconf debconf-utils debianutils dialog dmsetup dnsutils docbook-xml
  dpkg e2fsprogs enlightenment eog fetchmail file fileutils fontconfig g++ gcc
  gdk-imlib1 gdm gimp1.2 gnome-core gnome-panel gnome-panel-data gnome-session
  gnome-terminal gnumeric gnupg gs ibritish icewm imlib1 ispell
  libarchive-tar-perl libcupsys2 libfnlib0 libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 libgdk-pixbuf2
  libgnomeprint-bin libgnomeprint-data libgnomeprint15 libgtk2.0-0
  libgtkxmhtml1 libimlib2 libkrb53 libldap2 libmail-audit-perl libnspr4
  libnss3 libpam-modules libpaper1 libpaperg libpng2 libsasl7 libscrollkeeper0
  libxslt1 lilo lintian lsof-2.2 ltp-disc-test lvm2 mailx mount mozilla
  mozilla-browser mozilla-mailnews mozilla-psm mutt nautilus netbase
  nfs-common po-debconf python quota rep-gtk reportbug samba-common sawfish
  scrollkeeper sendmail sgml-data shellutils sodipodi sox sysklogd sysvinit
  tasksel tcpdump textutils util-linux uucp wenglish whiptail xbase-clients
  xchat xchat-common xlibmesa3
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 104 not upgraded.

> Nathan, please be sure to build your binaries against current unstable
> systems (chroot or otherwise) in the future when uploading to unstable;
> otherwise, we end up with binary packages that are not reproducible using
> current tools.

I do follow unstable quite closely, and usually will have done an
apt-get upgrade before building/installing/testing the current xfs
tools -- I got thwarted by the above issue though.

I'll upload a new xfsprogs shortly, I've confirmed the execute bit
is not set on the stack segment via objdump with libhandle built
using the latest unstable gcc.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

Attachment: pgpDDCZ1o4oma.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to