Re: [gentoo-dev] Doomsayers needed
23.11.2014 21:47, Michael Orlitzky пишет: We've got a bug in Nagios's `ping` command format detection: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=468296 It's easy to reproduce by taking down your lo interface, or by filtering all icmp packets in iptables. Fortunately, you can override the auto-detection by passing it a magic string, and that works around the bug: --with-ping-command=/bin/ping -n -U -w %d -c %d %s --with-ping6-command=/bin/ping6 -n -U -w %d -c %d %s Those are the formats and executable locations that get detected on my machine. Can anyone think of a case where hard-coding these (using $ROOT) would backfire on me? Standart - cross-compilation and prefix. If you do not care about the latter(not having keywords for your package) - it's ok. Cross-compilation, or compilation into another root is trickier - you should support it. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Doomsayers needed
On 11/26/2014 01:43 PM, Sergey Popov wrote:
Standart - cross-compilation and prefix. If you do not care about the
latter(not having keywords for your package) - it's ok.
Cross-compilation, or compilation into another root is trickier - you
should support it.
With ping and ping6 coming from net-misc/iputils, wouldn't the command
syntax be the same under prefix, except with $EROOT instead of $ROOT?
And with the command set to ${ROOT}bin/ping, building for a Gentoo
system under another root should work, right?
Cross-compiling for another system with a different syntax might not
work, of course -- but it didn't before, either. You'd need to use
EXTRA_ECONF for that.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Doomsayers needed
On 26 Nov 2014 11:07, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/26/2014 01:43 PM, Sergey Popov wrote:
Standart - cross-compilation and prefix. If you do not care about the
latter(not having keywords for your package) - it's ok.
Cross-compilation, or compilation into another root is trickier - you
should support it.
With ping and ping6 coming from net-misc/iputils, wouldn't the command
syntax be the same under prefix, except with $EROOT instead of $ROOT?
And with the command set to ${ROOT}bin/ping, building for a Gentoo
system under another root should work, right?
No, $ROOT should not seep into the compiled code.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Doomsayers needed
On 11/26/2014 03:57 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
And with the command set to ${ROOT}bin/ping, building for a Gentoo
system under another root should work, right?
No, $ROOT should not seep into the compiled code.
Ah, I think I see my mistake: when running *within* a chroot, you don't
want ${ROOT}bin/ping, instead you want just /bin/ping. Likewise for
prefix I'd want ${EPREFIX}/bin/ping instead of ${EROOT}bin/ping?
As long as the test suite remains disabled, it shouldn't be a problem to
set them to the values needed at runtime. Thank you both.
[gentoo-dev] Doomsayers needed
We've got a bug in Nagios's `ping` command format detection: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=468296 It's easy to reproduce by taking down your lo interface, or by filtering all icmp packets in iptables. Fortunately, you can override the auto-detection by passing it a magic string, and that works around the bug: --with-ping-command=/bin/ping -n -U -w %d -c %d %s --with-ping6-command=/bin/ping6 -n -U -w %d -c %d %s Those are the formats and executable locations that get detected on my machine. Can anyone think of a case where hard-coding these (using $ROOT) would backfire on me?
