Update git without installing an entire Docbook toolchain?
Hi! Is it possible to upgrade git without installing an entire Docbook toolchain? The computer in question is a server, which nobody uses as their primary computer, so if there's a way to just disable all documentation, that would also be fine. Thanks, Ricky The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
03.01.2013 20:30, Mark Felder: On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:24:31 -0400 Joseph Mingrone j...@ftfl.ca wrote: A little of topic, but Fossil is BSD licensed. It also would work poorly as an SCM for FreeBSD because everything would be in a giant sqlite database :( Why this is bad? Even for SVN I prefer bdb backend as it works faster and better regardless what SVN authors say. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
subversion is not in base and will probably never? So this is not a real problem :) 2013/1/2 Mark Felder f...@feld.me Git is also not BSD licensed. I believe it may require bringing Python into base as well. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Demelier David ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
03.01.2013 11:54, David Demelier: subversion is not in base and will probably never? So this is not a real problem :) Nope, importing svnsup would suffice. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/des/svnsup/ -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:19:55 +0200 Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kw...@gmail.com wrote: Nope, importing svnsup would suffice. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/des/svnsup/ As far as I know that's not a completed project. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:19:55 +0200 Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: 03.01.2013 11:54, David Demelier: subversion is not in base and will probably never? So this is not a real problem :) Nope, importing svnsup would suffice. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/des/svnsup/ Even that isn't essential, cvsup was used from ports for years before csup was written. And now we have portsnap, freebsd-update and pkg. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote: Git is also not BSD licensed. I believe it may require bringing Python into base as well. A little of topic, but Fossil is BSD licensed. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:24:31 -0400 Joseph Mingrone j...@ftfl.ca wrote: A little of topic, but Fossil is BSD licensed. It also would work poorly as an SCM for FreeBSD because everything would be in a giant sqlite database :( ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
When it comes to keeping sources, most developer and most large dislocated and non-centralized projects prefer GIT over Subversion. FreeBSD has moved from the ancient CVS to Subversion not long ago and I was wondering why freeBSD would have done this, since Subversion lacks in so many aspects of a modern revision system. Well, I face several odds now since I need a kind of hot replication system that replicates my Subversion repositories and I feel uncomfortable with the way Subversion performs this. I decided to move forward to GIT which seems more appropriate in any aspect and while I do not have so much legacy to carry on with, I think for me pesonally the move is more logical. But what is with the FreeBSD project? Are there any attempts or intentions to bring GIT also to the sources (the base system, the ports)? oh signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
On 01/02/2013 02:31 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: When it comes to keeping sources, most developer and most large dislocated and non-centralized projects prefer GIT over Subversion. FreeBSD has moved from the ancient CVS to Subversion not long ago and I was wondering why freeBSD would have done this, since Subversion lacks in so many aspects of a modern revision system. Well, I face several odds now since I need a kind of hot replication system that replicates my Subversion repositories and I feel uncomfortable with the way Subversion performs this. I decided to move forward to GIT which seems more appropriate in any aspect and while I do not have so much legacy to carry on with, I think for me pesonally the move is more logical. But what is with the FreeBSD project? Are there any attempts or intentions to bring GIT also to the sources (the base system, the ports)? http://wiki.freebsd.org/Git http://wiki.freebsd.org/GitDrawbacks Basically, the workflow practiced by the FreeBSD developers and release engineers would have to change completely, otherwise Git would fight them every step of the way. There are those of us who maintain Git mirrors of the project repos (with or without local patchsets), but they are in no way official. -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD: GIT instaed of SVN?
Git is also not BSD licensed. I believe it may require bringing Python into base as well. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: latest git ports upgrade
On Nov 29, 2012 2:27 PM, Artifex Maximus artife...@gmail.com wrote: BTW, why system does not know user git_daemon when git_daemon was in passwd and master.passwd? I am using portmaster to upgrade my installed ports. I have had this exact issue when installing postgresql via portmaster. When it fails (and it almost always does for me on 8.3-RELEASE when installing 9.1) I use vipw to remove the entry for the pgsql user. It's a little tedious but not enough of a headache for me to file a PR or investigate. kmw ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
latest git ports upgrade
Hello! On upgrade I got the following error with git port: === Creating users and/or groups. Using existing group `git_daemon'. Creating user `git_daemon' with uid `964'. pw: user 'git_daemon' already exists *** Error code 74 Look for git_daemon user: # id git_daemon id: git_daemon: no such user Hm. Try to delete: # pw userdel git_daemon pw: no such user `git_daemon' Well. Are there really no such user? # grep git_daemon /etc/passwd git_daemon:*:964:964:git daemon:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin # grep git_daemon /etc/master.passwd git_daemon:*:964:964::0:0:git daemon:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin Strange. Ok, do it manually. I remove git_daemon from passwd, master.passwd and group which is basically a no-no process I know. Then try to upgrade again. Now a little different error but still not able to upgrade: === Creating users and/or groups. Creating group `git_daemon' with gid `964'. Creating user `git_daemon' with uid `964'. pw: user 'git_daemon' disappeared during update *** Error code 67 On next upgrade got the first error so I am in loop. Any idea what to do? Bye, a ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: latest git ports upgrade
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:04:12 +0100 Artifex Maximus artife...@gmail.com wrote: On next upgrade got the first error so I am in loop. Any idea what to do? Please check /usr/ports/UPDATING which has a note in there about git. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: latest git ports upgrade
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote: On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:04:12 +0100 Artifex Maximus artife...@gmail.com wrote: On next upgrade got the first error so I am in loop. Any idea what to do? Please check /usr/ports/UPDATING which has a note in there about git. Thanks for your answer. The UPDATING entry is about the daemon process repository permission not about the error I have. Mine is some problem in user adding process at port install I think. Bye, a ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: latest git ports upgrade
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Artifex Maximus artife...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote: On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:04:12 +0100 Artifex Maximus artife...@gmail.com wrote: On next upgrade got the first error so I am in loop. Any idea what to do? Please check /usr/ports/UPDATING which has a note in there about git. Thanks for your answer. The UPDATING entry is about the daemon process repository permission not about the error I have. Mine is some problem in user adding process at port install I think. Sorry for the noise I forgot to run pwd_mkdb first time. I had success with pw group del git_daemon then editing master.passwd and run pwd_mkdb -p master.passwd which generate password database and recreate passwd from master.passwd. BTW, why system does not know user git_daemon when git_daemon was in passwd and master.passwd? I am using portmaster to upgrade my installed ports. Bye, a ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity
grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com writes: Any of hundreds of committer and admin accounts could be compromised with the attacker silently editing the repo. FUD. Committer accounts don't have direct access to the repo. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
Zach Leslie xaque...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.fossil-scm.org/ l I'm not fossil user, but it's BSD licensed in written in C. Also, this particular tool bails out on the unix philosophy, with its web gui, ticket tracker etc. Do one thing. Do it well. I would argue that git bails on that as well, but that's a different discussion. Whether or not fossil does one thing depends on which one thing you pick. If the one thing is version control, you're right. However version control is just one aspect of a larger task that does't have a common name. But if you look at systems designed for managing projects with source, you'll see they universally provide web uis, issue trackers, and wikis. Due you trash IDE's because they provide tools that are useful for doing software development instead of limiting themselves to being text editors? That fossil provides all of those things in a single relatively small program is a major win - at least for small projects (which is the fossil target). On the other hand, the fossil project does stay focused on the core task. They will reject a change proposal because it's not part of that task. That said, much as I like fossil (it's my goto VCS) I don't think it would be a good choice for FreeBSD. We're not a small project - we have people who are willing to devote time to things like an external wiki and isse tracker. Nuts, we have (had?) repos in four different VCSs! Those features in fossil are purposely kept simple since they're meant for doing one thing, not as general-purpose tools for lots of things. The issue tracker doesn't support branching issues, which is liable to cause problems in a large project. The FreeBSD wiki's are used for lots of things other than just project documents. The web ui - well, that's probably useable as is. But that one thing isn't a deal maker. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:08:13PM -0800, Zach Leslie wrote: http://www.fossil-scm.org/ I'm not fossil user, but it's BSD licensed in written in C. Baptise Daroussin probably could tell us more about fossil pro and cons. This misses one of of the main points raised in the original post. The proliferation of git as a revision control system. Also, this particular tool bails out on the unix philosophy, with its web gui, ticket tracker etc. Do one thing. Do it well. Look at the internal of fossil and how things are done in fossil and you would understand that the last sentence is totally wrong. Fossil has really nice features that could nicely fits with FreeBSD workflows and greatly improves it. It has most of the new shiny feature everyone can expect from a dvcs, but it also has it drawbacks: The converted repositories (I did convert docs, src and ports) with full history kept: branches, tags, etc. is huge and the first clone would be painful to do. On the other side you have multiple working copies open on the same clone which is really nice. Some of the operations can be slow, Jörg Sonnenberger wrote an analysis about this one the fossil wiki, but don't remember the link sorry. From my testing, apart from the do we really need a new scm question? I am a big fan of fossil and find it easier and cleaner than all the other scm I know, I use git for pkgng and other projects, I use a lot mercurial on some other area, and fossil remains my favorite :). But I really don't think it could fit FreeBSD's requirements as it is now. but there are lots of room of improvements. The learning curve to fossil is probably really easy. On of the last thing is that fossil lacks keyword expansion. That said I'm happy with svn on FreeBSD, I still from time to time do conversion of out different tree to fossil for fun, but no more and I won't advocate for any vcs change. Bapt pgppBxhkxmBDd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
19.11.2012 14:34, Ivan Voras wrote: On 17/11/2012 22:48, Chris Rees wrote: (and is GPL btw) Since we're discussing it, Mercurial is BSDL-ed, and apparently has proper crypto signing using GPG: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/FAQ#FAQ.2FTechnicalDetails.How_do_Mercurial_hashes_get_calculated.3F :%s/BSD/LGP/ http://mercurial.selenic.com/about/ -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote: On 17/11/2012 22:48, Chris Rees wrote: (and is GPL btw) Since we're discussing it, Mercurial is BSDL-ed, and apparently has proper crypto signing using GPG: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/FAQ#FAQ.2FTechnicalDetails.How_do_Mercurial_hashes_get_calculated.3F http://selenic.com/repo/hg/file/fd903f89e42b http://selenic.com/repo/hg/file/fd903f89e42b/COPYING GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE http://selenic.com/repo/hg/file/fd903f89e42b/COPYING#l2Version 2, June 1991 http://selenic.com/repo/hg/file/fd903f89e42b/COPYING#l3 In their repository , it is GPL v2 . Is there any other place which specifies its license as BSDL ? Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kw...@gmail.com wrote: 19.11.2012 14:34, Ivan Voras wrote: On 17/11/2012 22:48, Chris Rees wrote: (and is GPL btw) Since we're discussing it, Mercurial is BSDL-ed, and apparently has proper crypto signing using GPG: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/FAQ#FAQ.2FTechnicalDetails.How_do_Mercurial_hashes_get_calculated.3F :%s/BSD/LGP/ http://mercurial.selenic.com/about/ Even if it was BSD licensed, Mercurial has a huge dependency: Python; and Git is Perl-based. So neither of them is ideal, IMHO. If at all, we'd need a lean and mean distributed SCM program like Mercurial or Git, but written in C that we could add to base. Any volunteers? -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:10 AM, C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kw...@gmail.com wrote: 19.11.2012 14:34, Ivan Voras wrote: On 17/11/2012 22:48, Chris Rees wrote: (and is GPL btw) Since we're discussing it, Mercurial is BSDL-ed, and apparently has proper crypto signing using GPG: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/FAQ#FAQ.2FTechnicalDetails.How_do_Mercurial_hashes_get_calculated.3F :%s/BSD/LGP/ http://mercurial.selenic.com/about/ Even if it was BSD licensed, Mercurial has a huge dependency: Python; and Git is Perl-based. So neither of them is ideal, IMHO. If at all, we'd need a lean and mean distributed SCM program like Mercurial or Git, but written in C that we could add to base. Any volunteers? -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/License http://selenic.com/hg/file/tip/COPYING http://mercurial.selenic.com/about/ Mercurial is free software licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License Version 2 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt or any later version. No one of them above mentions BSD license , or dual license , etc. Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk Similar projects ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
http://www.fossil-scm.org/ I'm not fossil user, but it's BSD licensed in written in C. Baptise Daroussin probably could tell us more about fossil pro and cons. -- Regards, Alexander Yerenkow ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
There's a git repository. It's public. You can look at what goes into the FreeBSD git clone to get your assurance that things aren't being snuck in. People are using it, right now. I've always been confused by this. Which source repo is the true source of truth? To obtain the FreeBSD source, you can use CVS, SVN, or Git? Do all have the same level of support? Are they all up to date? Honestly, I'd rather see subversion grow this kind of cryptographic signing of each commit in the short term then migrate everyone over to git. How much effor would their really be involved, considering your link to the FreeBSD source repo on github. Converting the repos to me seems like it would be the bulk of it, and that work is already done. Help me understand please. Also, local branching and merging is amazing. -- Zach ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
http://www.fossil-scm.org/ I'm not fossil user, but it's BSD licensed in written in C. Baptise Daroussin probably could tell us more about fossil pro and cons. This misses one of of the main points raised in the original post. The proliferation of git as a revision control system. Also, this particular tool bails out on the unix philosophy, with its web gui, ticket tracker etc. Do one thing. Do it well. -- Zach ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On 19 November 2012 22:04, Zach Leslie xaque...@gmail.com wrote: I've always been confused by this. Which source repo is the true source of truth? This changed a few months ago when ports and doc switched. As of now: - SVN is *the* source of truth. - CVS is exported from svn. It will eventually go away - git is exported from svn. It will remain as an option for developers (including myself). To obtain the FreeBSD source, you can use CVS, SVN, or Git? Do all have the same level of support? Are they all up to date? SVN is *always* up to date. We try really hard to keep the others up to date, but fail at times. Also, local branching and merging is amazing. +1 - but one can always use git-svn. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Garrett Wollman woll...@bimajority.org wrote: the various good uses for nyms. There are no such uses on the FreeBSD mailing-lists; if you wish for anyone to pay attention to you, then use a real name. Otherwise, FOAD. -GAWollman It appears you have not reviewed the mailing list archives, otherwise you would have found many such nym holders engaging in good participation. However I do thank you for your opinion, and for your delightful and unwarranted private abuse. A good day to you indeed, Sir. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:59 AM, grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote: joerg_wun...@uriah.heep.sax.de You don't even have a name Your domain indicates Germany, please have a chat with CCC.de about the various good uses for nyms. And consult your library for some fine historical use cases. If that's counter to your beliefs, you are free to show us the way and post all your personal infos to the list. Uh-oh grarpamp, I hope you realize whom you're trying to lecture here! Joerg Wunsch is a highly appreciated long-time FreeBSD contributor and was member of the Core Team for a long time (I met him in person in the 90-ies and he's a very kind person). I wouldn't dismiss his advice lightly, unless I had a very good reason. Now, back to our regular programming. Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
grarpamp the various good uses for nyms. cpgh...@cordula.ws I hope you realize whom you're trying to lecture here! Joerg Wunsch is a highly appreciated long-time FreeBSD contributor Of course. No one here has any question as to anyone's FreeBSD participation. That would be silly :) I merely contest the suggestion that nyms have little to no utility, that people need moderate their usage alone in public, and that those using them are somehow lessers. I won't fail to defend general anti-nym opinion or guidance, particularly when wafted in this general direction. Now, back to our regular programming. Yes, about this lack of a self-authenticating repo, etc. [1] It is good to see some discussion forming around it :) [1] Or whatever it may better be called. Put another way... we can't yet say, in the strong cryptographic sense, that anyone has a true copy of the repo. Or that the repo is itself internally tamper free and/or tamper proof. And so on as applied down the production and distribution chain. The repo does face certain risks. And Git appears as if it may be one way to mitigate them. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
I won't fail to defend general anti-nym opinion or guidance d-oh, s/defend/defend against/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
http://www.freebsd.org/news/2012-compromise.html http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/17/143219/freebsd-project-discloses-security-breach-via-stolen-ssh-key This is not about this incident, but about why major opensource projects need to be using a repository that has traceable, verifiable, built-in cryptographic authentication. Any of hundreds of committer and admin accounts could be compromised with the attacker silently editing the repo. The same applies to any of those accounts going rogue. Backtrack diffing from a breach to 'see what changed' is not the ideal option. You really need to be using a strong repo so that any attack on it is null from the start. Another problem is bit rot wherever it may occur... disk, hardware, the wire, EMP and other systems. As it is now, we have no way to verify that what we get on pressed CD's, ISO's, FTP sites, torrents, etc is strongly linked back to the original repo. Signing over a hash of the ISO is *not* the same as including the strong repo hash (commit) that was used to build the release and then signing over that and the ISO. We can't know that our local repository updates match the master. ports.tar.gz has no authentication either. Nor does anything in the entire project that originates from the current SVN/CVS repo... webpages, docs, tools, source tarballs, etc. The FTP packages aren't signed, and there are weak MD5's used in various parts of the install/package tools, mirrors, etc. We can't trade hashes amongst people. It's all just a bunch of random bits that someone may or may not have signed over. And even if signed they still wouldn't be strongly linked back to the master repo. Having such a disconnect at the root of everything you do is simply not good practice these days. And these days, Git is what people and projects are moving to, and its rate of adoption and prevalence have essentially won out over all the rest in the new 'revision control 2.0 world'. And knowing Git is now more or less essential if you want to participate in a wide variety of community development, ref: github, etc. The FreeBSD project needs to be providing both itself, and its users and benefactors with verifiable assurance that its repository, and any copies and derived products, are authentic and intact. Don't argue against such a repository feature, or the cost to move, or bury your head in the sand by saying it could never happen to us... Take this as a real opportunity to lead amongst the major opensource projects like Linux, and among the BSD's (like DragonFly has), and move to Git. Once the root is fixed, you can push out secure distribution and update models from there. It all starts at the root and can't be done without it. https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-fsck.html Verifies the connectivity and validity of the objects in the database http://git-scm.com/about/info-assurance The data model that Git uses ensures the cryptographic integrity of every bit of your project. Every file and commit is checksummed and retrieved by its checksum when checked back out. It's impossible to get anything out of Git other than the exact bits you put in. It is also impossible to change any file, date, commit message, or any other data in a Git repository without changing the IDs of everything after it. This means that if you have a commit ID, you can be assured not only that your project is exactly the same as when it was committed, but that nothing in its history was changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) The Git history is stored in such a way that the id of a particular revision (a commit in Git terms) depends upon the complete development history leading up to that commit. Once it is published, it is not possible to change the old versions without it being noticed. The structure is similar to a hash tree, but with additional data at the nodes as well as the leaves. Some references... http://git-scm.com/ https://github.com/ http://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
joerg_wun...@uriah.heep.sax.de You don't even have a name Your domain indicates Germany, please have a chat with CCC.de about the various good uses for nyms. And consult your library for some fine historical use cases. If that's counter to your beliefs, you are free to show us the way and post all your personal infos to the list. spamming a large number of FreeBSD mailinglists with your advocacy? This topic would benefit from the review and involvement of users (questions), committers (hackers), security (security), and distribution (hubs). -- Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) As well summarized by this (your signature) ... sources you can't verify to the master are, also, sources you can't trust. fi...@ukr.net LOL And how will this help Linux? http://lwn.net/Articles/457142/ How will what help Linux? Please quote a relevant snippet instead of the entire message. Seems pretty clear from the above link that having hashes/crypto as an intrinsic feature of the SCM tool does in fact help Linux. If you're asking about distribution of things traceable back to the master repo, at least your security officer can sign the initial repository commit and then include the various distribution keys and subsequent updates, signed tags, etc in the repo. utis...@gmail.com Yes, but git doesn't work with our workflow. There's usually a larger than head sized sandbox near everyone's local neighborhood. Will people elect to visit it, or to learn, grow, and change for the better? Prioe workflow is often forced by and derived from the tools being used. Different tools could enable different, more useful workflows. SVN required workflow change from CVS, people managed just fine. It's been discussed several times I will look for these. Can you point to a couple main threads? [git] ... is GPL btw FreeBSD does not include this sort-of-BSD licensed SCM tool in its base either... # https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/LICENSE # ls /*bin/svn /usr/*bin/svn ls: No such file or directory But it does include this GPL licensed one... # http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/cvs/ccvs/COPYING?revision=HEAD # ls /*bin/cvs /usr/*bin/cvs' /usr/bin/cvs And of course we have this in use as well... # perforce http://www.perforce.com/purchase/pricing-licensing So it seems license is not an obstacle to inclusion, and certainly not the use via ports, of any particular SCM with the FreeBSD project. rsimmo...@gmail.com https://github.com/freebsd/ adr...@freebsd.org You can look at what goes into the FreeBSD Git clone to get your assurance that things aren't being snuck in. The same could be said for the CVS clone. Again... Any copy of something that is itself not verifiable provides no such assurance. Those who want to use git can use it, right now. Honest. Yes, Git does seem to me to be leading the other distributed, hash based, SCM tools such as Hg. Thus Git is suggested. Yes, Git would fill the purpose. I only suggest Git, as to some other choices that use hashes (as usual, please verify with current releases)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software But this is not really about using Git in particular... These replies are all dodging around the base issue raised... - That FreeBSD has no verifiable source repo - Which is not only a problem for the repo itself, but for everything attempted to be spawned downstream off of that root (no verifiable distribution system/tools distributing that repo, etc). Sorry to reply to these sorts of replies this way, but please, this isn't a troll or a shed. No need to do that around the issue raised. Hash [ :-) ] it out and solve it. Why wait for a costlier breach? Why not provide the assurance beforehand? No better time than now. g...@ross.cx http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/171-jonathan-corbet/491001-the-cracking-of-kernelorg Yes, another good link outlining the issue. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:59:54 -0500, grarpamp wrote: Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) As well summarized by this (your signature) ... sources you can't verify to the master are, also, sources you can't trust. Unless. of couse, you are able to use the source Luke and spot malicious portions by yourself. This of course is usually possible to subsets only, and mostly to the gurus of our guild. The ordinary user won't be able to do this. fi...@ukr.net LOL And how will this help Linux? http://lwn.net/Articles/457142/ How will what help Linux? Please quote a relevant snippet instead of the entire message. Seems pretty clear from the above link that having hashes/crypto as an intrinsic feature of the SCM tool does in fact help Linux. The article's headline is kernel.org compromised, and the significant part (as of August 2011!) is: Earlier this month, a number of servers in the kernel.org infrastructure were compromised. We discovered this August 28th. While we currently believe that the source code repositories were unaffected, we are in the process of verifying this and taking steps to enhance security across the kernel.org infrastructure. However, this is a Linux problem, not a FreeBSD one, regarding repository infrastructure. utis...@gmail.com Yes, but git doesn't work with our workflow. There's usually a larger than head sized sandbox near everyone's local neighborhood. Will people elect to visit it, or to learn, grow, and change for the better? In many contexts, better _depends_. Prioe workflow is often forced by and derived from the tools being used. That is _one_ (valid!) way to see it. Another way is that tools will be chosen according to established workflows, or tools will adapt those workflows to better support them. Different tools could enable different, more useful workflows. SVN required workflow change from CVS, people managed just fine. If the required programs will be integrated in the OS, accompanied by proper documentation, and the backend infrastructures being instantiated, up and running, I don't see a big problem. Unlike in other OS countries, FreeBSD people are able to adapt to new methods and tools. [git] ... is GPL btw FreeBSD does not include this sort-of-BSD licensed SCM tool in its base either... # https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/LICENSE # ls /*bin/svn /usr/*bin/svn ls: No such file or directory But it does include this GPL licensed one... # http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/cvs/ccvs/COPYING?revision=HEAD # ls /*bin/cvs /usr/*bin/cvs' /usr/bin/cvs And of course we have this in use as well... # perforce http://www.perforce.com/purchase/pricing-licensing So it seems license is not an obstacle to inclusion, and certainly not the use via ports, of any particular SCM with the FreeBSD project. As far as I know, FreeBSD team puts much work into getting the OS into a BSD license only state, making it more appealing to commercial use where the (often so called) rape me license BSDL is very welcome. But as for being part of the OS installation, you are right: Whatever tool will be required (or at least suggested) for the purpose of managing CVS-like functionality for sources and the ports collection should be part of the basic installation. That's why pkg_add -r cvsup-without-gui (if I remember correctly) has been the way in the past, but then, a rewrite called csup became part of the default installation, so you could use the known cvs command _and_ have a nice integration with system functionality, like entries in /etc/make.conf and configuration files for _how_ to update sources, ports, documentation and so on (e. g. in /etc/sup, with /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ as examples), so make update would do whatever you wanted. Exactly that kind of productive (!) behaviour is what I would expect (or at least wish) for any replacement of CVS, be it SVN or Git. Sorry to reply to these sorts of replies this way, but please, this isn't a troll or a shed. No need to do that around the issue raised. Hash [ :-) ] it out and solve it. With some salt, please. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident]
On 18/11/2012 05:21, Robert Simmons wrote: Yup: https://github.com/freebsd/ There's also git.freebsd.org. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
restricted ssh shell for ruby on rails hosting ? (rake, git, etc.)
Hello, I'm managing a few hosting servers, mostly php-based: customers have SFTP access (via proftpd and mod_sftp), phpmyadmin, etc. They are jailed in their home directory on both levels: DefaultRoot ~ for FTP, and open_basedir for PHP, and it's working fine like this. Now I have added a few personal ruby on rails hosting on one of the servers (via mod_passenger), and I'd like to do so for other people. Problem: most of the RoR operations will require a ssh shell, for example for rake db:migrate, local gem installation, debugging, and local git repository management as well. I presume I am not the only one in this situation: if it is the case on your systems, may I ask how to you handle this case, to maintain the best overall system security ? I just saw shells/ibsh in the ports list which could have helped, but it doesn't really seem to be maintained (last update was in 2005). The rails user can't browse other user's directories (solved simply with unix filesystem rights), and he can't see other processes ( security.bsd.see_other_gids=0, security.bsd.see_other_uids=0, etc.), but one of the thing I would like to prevent is for example accessing some files like /etc/passwd (= listing all other customers domains in this specific case). Other things would be: - prevent the launch of daemons (- screen, irssi, bots, etc.) - ? - prevent the use of crontab -e (for some people): /var/cron/allow|deny The document under http://www.bsdguides.org/guides/freebsd/security/harden.php is a good help, but not for all points... And it's also from 2005. Any suggestion welcome :) Merci regards, Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Subversion over SSH works through GIT but not with SVN
Hello Greg, hello list, thank you very much for your answer, it was very useful! Greg Larkin wrote: On 4/20/11 7:21 AM, Michael Grünewald wrote: I have recently discovered that by subversion client (1.16_2) is not able any more to access my subversion accounts over svn+ssh (with key based authentication). It seems very odd to me, because in the same time git can access these accounts (with the git svn command) and commit to these repositories! [...] Finally, if all else fails, I run commands through truss or strace to see if there are any strange errors generated by system calls, like a missing library or config file, or an unexpected chdir() or chroot(). I feel here a bit ashamed: I plainly forgot to inform subversion that my login name on the remote machine is not the same as on the local, what git has been told years ago. Your clue to use ssh instead of the svn put me on the right track. To my defence, the login name that ssh uses during its conversation is not printed on the diagnostic line when verbose output is enabled. While this information is very basic and elementary, it maybe would be useful to debug a connection (I admit, ``login name'' should stand quite high on the list of things to check when something goes wrong!) In my case, if the login names had been present in the verbose output os SSH ,I woud have spotted it by diff'ing the outputs of the successful and unsuccessful transactions. Maybe I should file a PR for this? Why do I instantly think ``login name'' when I hear ssh and not when I hear svn? Well, I hope my therapist will be able to help me sorting it out :) -- Thank you very much, Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Subversion over SSH works through GIT but not with SVN
Hi all, I have recently discovered that by subversion client (1.16_2) is not able any more to access my subversion accounts over svn+ssh (with key based authentication). It seems very odd to me, because in the same time git can access these accounts (with the git svn command) and commit to these repositories! I am here absolutely clueless, so I would welcome your insights and your help! I set up `SVN_SSH' to `ssh -vv' in order to get a little more feedback than the `connexion unexpectedly closed' that subversion gave me. Here is an exceirpt of the successful svn+ssh authentication achieved by git svn: debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa (0x801a61680) debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa (0x0) debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Server accepts key: pkalg ssh-rsa blen 277 on the pure svn side I have instead debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa (0x801a61660) debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa (0x0) debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey debug1: Trying private key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa debug2: we did not send a packet, disable method (this is the point were the two transcripts start to disagree). I do not know what is the hex value after the name of the file containing my private key, but it semms weird to me that the two runs give here different results! Do you see a symptom related to my problem? -- Thanks a lot, Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Subversion over SSH works through GIT but not with SVN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 4/20/11 7:21 AM, Michael Grünewald wrote: Hi all, I have recently discovered that by subversion client (1.16_2) is not able any more to access my subversion accounts over svn+ssh (with key based authentication). It seems very odd to me, because in the same time git can access these accounts (with the git svn command) and commit to these repositories! I am here absolutely clueless, so I would welcome your insights and your help! I set up `SVN_SSH' to `ssh -vv' in order to get a little more feedback than the `connexion unexpectedly closed' that subversion gave me. Here is an exceirpt of the successful svn+ssh authentication achieved by git svn: debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa (0x801a61680) debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa (0x0) debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Server accepts key: pkalg ssh-rsa blen 277 on the pure svn side I have instead debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa (0x801a61660) debug2: key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa (0x0) debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey debug1: Trying private key: /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa debug2: we did not send a packet, disable method (this is the point were the two transcripts start to disagree). I do not know what is the hex value after the name of the file containing my private key, but it semms weird to me that the two runs give here different results! Do you see a symptom related to my problem? Hi Michael, I think the hex value discrepancy is significant, but I'm not yet sure why the value changes. The private key filename looks the same. When I run into problems like this, I first start by eliminating the application connecting through ssh and just try a standard ssh connection like so: ssh -vvv -l username hostname You may also want to add -i ~/.ssh/id_rsa to the command line to see if that changes anything. If you authenticate successfully with that command, then check the ~/.subversion/config file for suspect entries in the [tunnels] section. Finally, if all else fails, I run commands through truss or strace to see if there are any strange errors generated by system calls, like a missing library or config file, or an unexpected chdir() or chroot(). Hope that helps, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2vROsACgkQ0sRouByUApDzZwCfaQ1TPWXr4YFNKRhE792XXR3o LBMAnjWrw8Y+DqZnAz9YJqP/Qh9lS7uX =wtcF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Question about git
Hi I am having a problem with git. I followed a tutorial[1] about managing a website hosted on a remote server with git version control. It explains to use a post-receive script to update a detached working tree. However, when ever I push from the local machine to remote server the script fails with this error: Counting objects: 5, done. Compressing objects: 100% (3/3), done. Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 319 bytes, done. Total 3 (delta 2), reused 0 (delta 0) refs/heads/master: 863ce61088f2b6e2f8c5ccfa755c894558b83db3 - 52e033ea3b7ef16c88e865e1dbc3c4f72ca47cc2 fatal: /usr/bin/git-checkout cannot be used without a working tree. error: hooks/post-receive exited with error code 1 To ssh://j...@sphinx.mythic-beasts.com/home/jpg/website_devel.git 863ce61..52e033e master - master I have been searching on the internet for hours and tried different things like unsetting the environment variables using env -i, or by explicitly setting the $GIT_WORK_TREE $GIT_DIR variables in the script but it just will not run. Can anyone who uses git help me to figure out how I can use this post-receive script to update a detached work tree [1] http://http://toroid.org/ams/git-website-howto Thank you. -- Jamie http://www.mythic-beasts.com/~jpg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
what is special about the 'git' Makefile ?
I've been doing this dance: ../configure ; make ; make install for about ten years now. Sometimes there are some little issues, but nothing too crazy. I tried to build 'git' from source today, however, and it doesn't behave like anything I've ever seen... I do the ./configure and it completes without errors: checking for mkstemps... yes checking for library containing mkstemps... none required checking Checking for POSIX Threads with '-pthread'... yes configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating config.mak.autogen and then run 'make' ... Makefile, line 206: Need an operator Makefile, line 244: Missing dependency operator Makefile, line 247: Need an operator Makefile, line 250: Need an operator Makefile, line 273: Need an operator Makefile, line 286: Need an operator Makefile, line 395: Need an operator (snip about 8 or 10 PAGES of the above) Makefile, line 1293: Need an operator Makefile, line 1294: warning: duplicate script for target ifdef ignored Makefile, line 1295: warning: duplicate script for target ifdef ignored Makefile, line 1296: Need an operator Makefile, line 1298: Need an operator Makefile, line 1301: Need an operator Makefile, line 1303: Missing dependency operator Makefile, line 1305: Need an operator Makefile, line 1307: Missing dependency operator Makefile, line 1309: Need an operator Error expanding embedded variable. So ... what in the world is going on here ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: what is special about the 'git' Makefile ?
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:33:03 -0700 (PDT), George Sanders gosand1...@yahoo.com wrote: I've been doing this dance: ../configure ; make ; make install for about ten years now. Sometimes there are some little issues, but nothing too crazy. I tried to build 'git' from source today, however, and it doesn't behave like anything I've ever seen... I do the ./configure and it completes without errors: checking for mkstemps... yes checking for library containing mkstemps... none required checking Checking for POSIX Threads with '-pthread'... yes configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating config.mak.autogen and then run 'make' ... Makefile, line 206: Need an operator Makefile, line 244: Missing dependency operator ... So ... what in the world is going on here ? Try using GNU make: ./configure gmake The devel/git port includes `USE_GMAKE=yes', so I'm guessing the port maintainer discovered that the makefiles of Git use gmake-specific constructs and added it to the port makefile for a good reason. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: what is special about the 'git' Makefile ?
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM, George Sanders gosand1...@yahoo.comwrote: I've been doing this dance: ../configure ; make ; make install for about ten years now. Sometimes there are some little issues, but nothing too crazy. I tried to build 'git' from source today, however, and it doesn't behave like anything I've ever seen... I do the ./configure and it completes without errors: checking for mkstemps... yes checking for library containing mkstemps... none required checking Checking for POSIX Threads with '-pthread'... yes configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating config.mak.autogen and then run 'make' ... Makefile, line 206: Need an operator Makefile, line 244: Missing dependency operator Makefile, line 247: Need an operator Makefile, line 250: Need an operator Makefile, line 273: Need an operator Makefile, line 286: Need an operator Makefile, line 395: Need an operator (snip about 8 or 10 PAGES of the above) Makefile, line 1293: Need an operator Makefile, line 1294: warning: duplicate script for target ifdef ignored Makefile, line 1295: warning: duplicate script for target ifdef ignored Makefile, line 1296: Need an operator Makefile, line 1298: Need an operator Makefile, line 1301: Need an operator Makefile, line 1303: Missing dependency operator Makefile, line 1305: Need an operator Makefile, line 1307: Missing dependency operator Makefile, line 1309: Need an operator Error expanding embedded variable. So ... what in the world is going on here ? Maybe gmake? -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: what is special about the 'git' Makefile ?
George Sanders wrote: I've been doing this dance: You haven't been out on the floor nearly often enough, it seems. Better dust off those blue suede shoes. :) ../configure ; make ; make install for about ten years now. Sometimes there are some little issues, but nothing too crazy. I tried to build 'git' from source today, however, and it doesn't behave like anything I've ever seen... I do the ./configure and it completes without errors: ... and then run 'make' ... Makefile, line 206: Need an operator Makefile, line 244: Missing dependency operator ... So ... what in the world is going on here ? Er, you're using FreeBSD make(1) when you should be using GNU gmake? There is a FreeBSD Port for this software in devel/git, and even if you don't want to use it, the Makefiles and patches usually provide a good guide to modifications that you may need to make to get it to work on FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: git
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:22:09 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:31:24 -0400, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. Hi Chuck, Something is obviously broken in Git 1.5.5. My installation from Ports core dumps pretty fast too: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git fetch Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ [...] Are you also running with option 'J' enabled in `malloc.conf'? Verified. Setting malloc.conf options to 'aj', lets git-fetch run without crashing: I moved the discussion to hackers, take a look over there for more info, I don't think it's malloc, and I think I've proved at least part of my case. : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# ln -fs aj malloc.conf : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# : : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git-fetch : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# ln -fs AJ malloc.conf : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# : : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git-fetch : Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRrbaz62J6PPcoOkRAnD+AJsFPoO9okMslbl9PMN8g22qlYzGVwCeIIwX q0iQ6ZVYE4O60iIaKtngknI= =vKAo -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:38:02 -0400, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:22:09 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:31:24 -0400, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. Hi Chuck, Something is obviously broken in Git 1.5.5. My installation from Ports core dumps pretty fast too: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git fetch Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ [...] Are you also running with option 'J' enabled in `malloc.conf'? Verified. Setting malloc.conf options to 'aj', lets git-fetch run without crashing: I moved the discussion to hackers, take a look over there for more info, I don't think it's malloc, and I think I've proved at least part of my case. Neat. I've just read that thread, and see that it has been tracked down and fixed now :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
git
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRY37z62J6PPcoOkRAnXeAJ93lrCpYso1hj+KOEZqAT02tI3W9QCbBLbJ vBsWFdvjm/6uAXpp8etLZWY= =b4R6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
* Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-03 14:31:24-0400]: Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. Have you tried to clone other repositories and see if you can replicate this error? I built my git from ports and IIRC, it seemed to clone and pull the xorg tree fine (but that was about 3 weeks ago). Thomas -- N.J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Etiamsi occiderit me, in ipso sperabo ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 N.J. Thomas wrote: * Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-03 14:31:24-0400]: Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. Have you tried to clone other repositories and see if you can replicate this error? I built my git from ports and IIRC, it seemed to clone and pull the xorg tree fine (but that was about 3 weeks ago). Thomas No, that's the only git repo I have now. Got a url of one that works for you? I have extra disk to give it a try. Beyond that, I just tried purposefully sticking a division by zero in a little demo C prog of mine, and that one, when I do the gdb -c corefile gives me the same thing, thousands of empty stack frames and no full ones. Why should that be? I have used gdb very recently to debug static images, they work ok (although I didn't try the corefiles on those). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRa2/z62J6PPcoOkRAscOAJ9kkx1COQ+4UR/AU1xECliyGlE68QCfRWiB tPZC6YOG1cZ4xgkpD3+FjK0= =4hBV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
* Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-03 16:46:55-0400]: git-pull gives me a coredump Have you tried to clone other repositories and see if you can replicate this error? No, that's the only git repo I have now. Got a url of one that works for you? I have extra disk to give it a try. Debian has nice list of git repositories available for cloning: http://git.debian.org/ Thomas -- N.J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Etiamsi occiderit me, in ipso sperabo ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 N.J. Thomas wrote: * Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-03 16:46:55-0400]: git-pull gives me a coredump Have you tried to clone other repositories and see if you can replicate this error? No, that's the only git repo I have now. Got a url of one that works for you? I have extra disk to give it a try. Debian has nice list of git repositories available for cloning: http://git.debian.org I'm very new at git, and while I know cvs pretty well, I just don't know git. I just tried to do a git clone on a Clisp image, worked fine, then I cd'ed into it until I saw a .git directory (I assume that's something like cvs's CVS dirs) but when I tried to do a git pull (no params here) it gave me a coredump. Did I do that right? I mean, it was a correct test? Does the git-clone call git-fetch? Because that's the part that's failing in the pull, so I wonder if it's getting called in the clone. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRbpGz62J6PPcoOkRAmrgAKCWomx2cbl04sL6pLIoVItr7YUEOwCgnLNS eRxvuroEpnM3rZBr0cgMfWg= =qsIX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:31:24 -0400, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. Hi Chuck, Something is obviously broken in Git 1.5.5. My installation from Ports core dumps pretty fast too: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git fetch Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ I have a kernel+userland compiled with debugging symbols, and this seems to be a double-free bug in git-fetch(1): : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida$ cd git/erc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git-fetch : Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ gdb /usr/local/bin/git-fetch git-fetch.core : GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] : Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. : GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are : welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. : Type show copying to see the conditions. : There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type show warranty for details. : This GDB was configured as i386-marcel-freebsd...No symbol table is loaded. Use the file command. : : Core was generated by `git-fetch'. : Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. : Reading symbols from /usr/local/lib/libcurl.so.4...done. : Loaded symbols for /usr/local/lib/libcurl.so.4 : Reading symbols from /lib/libz.so.4...done. : Loaded symbols for /lib/libz.so.4 : Reading symbols from /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3...done. : Loaded symbols for /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 : Reading symbols from /lib/libcrypto.so.5...done. : Loaded symbols for /lib/libcrypto.so.5 : Reading symbols from /lib/libc.so.7...done. : Loaded symbols for /lib/libc.so.7 : Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libssl.so.5...done. : Loaded symbols for /usr/lib/libssl.so.5 : Reading symbols from /libexec/ld-elf.so.1...done. : Loaded symbols for /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 : #0 idalloc (ptr=0x5a5a5a5a) at /home/build/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c:3386 : 3386 arena_dalloc(chunk-arena, chunk, ptr); : (gdb) bt : #0 idalloc (ptr=0x5a5a5a5a) at /home/build/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c:3386 : #1 0x28441357 in free (ptr=0x5a5a5a5a) at /home/build/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c:4714 : #2 0x080d7a54 in transport_unlock_pack () : #3 0x080667f7 in unlock_pack () : #4 0x28495af3 in __cxa_finalize (dso=0x0) at /home/build/src/lib/libc/stdlib/atexit.c:180 : #5 0x2844549a in exit (status=0) at /home/build/src/lib/libc/stdlib/exit.c:67 : #6 0x0804b15d in handle_internal_command () : #7 0x0804b88d in main () : (gdb) quit Note the 0x5a5a5a5a pointer value in free(). That's a bug in git-fetch. A double free() that our malloc uncovers. This is a double-free() because I'm running my laptop with: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida$ ls -l /etc/malloc* lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 2 Mar 28 19:31 /etc/malloc.conf - AJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida$ and 'J' enables the following malloc()/free() behavior: Each byte of new memory allocated by malloc(), realloc() or reallocf() will be initialized to 0xa5. All memory returned by free(), realloc() or reallocf() will be initialized to 0x5a. This is intended for debugging and will impact performance negatively. Are you also running with option 'J' enabled in `malloc.conf'? HTH, Giorgos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: git
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:22:09 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:31:24 -0400, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wonder if anyone could tell me why anything I do to run git-pull gives me a coredump? The image that gets dumped is git-fetch, if that helps, and I was just trying to update the xorg source tree. Hi Chuck, Something is obviously broken in Git 1.5.5. My installation from Ports core dumps pretty fast too: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git fetch Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ [...] Are you also running with option 'J' enabled in `malloc.conf'? Verified. Setting malloc.conf options to 'aj', lets git-fetch run without crashing: : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# ln -fs aj malloc.conf : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# : : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git-fetch : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# ln -fs AJ malloc.conf : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# : : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ git-fetch : Segmentation fault: 11 (core dumped) : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/keramida/git/erc$ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
