On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 01:14:36AM +0000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tuesday 26 August 2008 05:54, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:49:49PM +0000, Russell Coker wrote: > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=445595 > > > > The patch is broken. Next time, please guess that if there is a guard like: > > > > #if defined(i386) && defined(USE_MMX) > > > > It's because the file is built on all architectures. > > Are i386 and AMD64 the only architectures that support non-executable stacks? > > If not then which architectures have this support? > > How does the patch break things? I don't think that adding a few bytes to a > shared object counts as breakage, in the case of security relevant bugs I > think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I hope you know about buildd.debian.org right ? It fails like that: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=496549 -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpPYcMSM4BBv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
