Re: [gentoo-dev] suspicious code snipped in gcc-4.5* ebuilds

2010-10-05 Thread Magnus Granberg 
On Tuesday 05 October 2010 18.52.29 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 02:32 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > I was just looking at some random ebuilds recently, and noticed this
> > snippet in gcc-4.5* ebuilds:
> > 
> > SSP_STABLE="amd64 x86 ppc ppc64 arm
> > # uclibc need tls and nptl support for SSP support"
> > SSP_UCLIBC_STABLE=""
> > 
> > Please note how the #-starting comment is inside the SSP_STABLE variable
> > declaration. It looks very obvious when seen in a syntax-coloring editor.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if it breaks, as "uclibc", "need", "tls" etc. are not valid
> > arch names, but it's still probably not intended.
> 
> Open a bug?
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
allready fixed in cvs and it was not intended.
/Magnus

Re: [gentoo-dev] suspicious code snipped in gcc-4.5* ebuilds

2010-10-05 Thread Petteri Räty 
On 10/05/2010 02:32 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I was just looking at some random ebuilds recently, and noticed this
> snippet in gcc-4.5* ebuilds:
> 
> SSP_STABLE="amd64 x86 ppc ppc64 arm
> # uclibc need tls and nptl support for SSP support"
> SSP_UCLIBC_STABLE=""
> 
> Please note how the #-starting comment is inside the SSP_STABLE variable
> declaration. It looks very obvious when seen in a syntax-coloring editor.
> 
> I'm not sure if it breaks, as "uclibc", "need", "tls" etc. are not valid
> arch names, but it's still probably not intended.
> 

Open a bug?

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] suspicious code snipped in gcc-4.5* ebuilds

2010-10-05 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr. 
I was just looking at some random ebuilds recently, and noticed this
snippet in gcc-4.5* ebuilds:

SSP_STABLE="amd64 x86 ppc ppc64 arm
# uclibc need tls and nptl support for SSP support"
SSP_UCLIBC_STABLE=""

Please note how the #-starting comment is inside the SSP_STABLE variable
declaration. It looks very obvious when seen in a syntax-coloring editor.

I'm not sure if it breaks, as "uclibc", "need", "tls" etc. are not valid
arch names, but it's still probably not intended.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature