On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:08:40 -0800 "laurent FANIS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Hi, > > First off, i am not trying to push these patches, i was asked on IRC > to post them with some comments. > I did so. ok - but this is not good for anyone using the openbsd ports. things literally are broken due to these patches you put in. > > > -MODULE_ARCH="$host_os-$host_cpu" > > > +MODULE_ARCH="" > > > AC_SUBST(MODULE_ARCH) > > > AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(MODULE_ARCH, "$MODULE_ARCH", "Module architecture") > > > > > > > ugh, this cant possibly be correct. can you explain what you're trying to > > fix. same goes for all the configure scripts you modified like this. > > > This is to be able to update cleanly the packages from one release to > another, this is OpenBSD specific. i don't see how this can be right - the host_os and host_cpu should be the SAME between builds and updates - thus the same dir and files created or overwritten. if it varies - then you have a problem in your build setup. > > > In ecore: > > > It seems ecore does not respect :--disable-ecore-evas-sdl > > > --disable-ecore-sdl and still links to SDL if it exist, can someone > > > please test this under linux. > > > > there is no --disable-ecore-sdl option ... maybe that is why it doesnt work > > for you ;) > > > > It didn't work on my test machine and i wanted some feedback from > other users as i do not have a linux machine to test it. it was a problem of linking if sdl is found at all. fixed in cvs. > > > In E: > > > --- src/bin/Makefile.am.orig Fri Nov 9 16:20:53 2007 > > > +++ src/bin/Makefile.am Fri Nov 9 16:21:15 2007 > > > @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ e_xinerama.c > > > > > > enlightenment_init_LDFLAGS = @e_libs@ > > > > > > -setuid_root_mode = a=rx,u+xs > > > +setuid_root_mode = a=rx,u+x > > > install-exec-hook: > > > @chmod $(setuid_root_mode) > > > $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/enlightenment_sys$(EXEEXT) || true > > > > clearly this is not correct. > > > > In the port system we do not install anything with setuid root. If the > user wants it then the user has to manually update it. that that's wrong. the policy is wrong. it literally breaks functionality for a user. this is where security policies just go into the land of stupidity and make life hard for users. as i said in my other email - there is a nice detailed config file to determine access here. this basically means any documentation on features will be incorrect as you removed functionality that despite how they configure it, will never work. maybe before blindly removing setuid bits - you should check what has it and why and what it does, and how. :) i understand the need for security - but just blindly removing setuid bits "because that is policy" is a policy that is wrong - as it does not examine the facts of the case nor the repercussions of removing it. please consider supplying a correctly configured sysactions.cfg for e instead of removing the setuid bit. :) -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
