On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 15:02:03 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > I'd suggest just marking what we have an idea about. It's not
> > like lintian warnings matter for something that's not in the archive...
>
> That's true.
>
> (Implementation braindump for anyone interested in jumping in: we
> could
hi Guillem, all,
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
When you define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 the interfaces are transparently
mapped to the 64-bit variants and no other code change is required. So
you *must* not be switching from foo to foo64 in the call sites. This
is IMO the preferred way
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 11:38:28PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 21:35:07 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > The problem is in snowflake packages that do things their own way and enable
> > LFS only when it's actually needed. Here's where the lintian false positive
> >
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 21:35:07 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> And what AC_SYS_LARGEFILE does, at least on Linux, is to return a hardcoded
> setting so programs switch from off_t to off64_t whether they need to or
> not. This does the right thing on old 32-bit archs and is harmless on
> 64-bit and
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 21:47:15 +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > AC_SYS_LARGEFILE on i386 (linux) for mpgrafic-0.3.15-1 apparently does
> > > *not*
> > > always do the right thing
> > Nope, you use pwrite() not pwrite64() -- on i386 you need the latter
hi Adam, all,
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
AC_SYS_LARGEFILE on i386 (linux) for mpgrafic-0.3.15-1 apparently does *not*
always do the right thing:
You call it but don't actually use what it returns:
mpicc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -O2
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 12:18:59AM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > And what AC_SYS_LARGEFILE does, at least on Linux, is to return a hardcoded
> > setting so programs switch from off_t to off64_t whether they need to or
> > not. This does the right thing
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
And what AC_SYS_LARGEFILE does, at least on Linux, is to return a hardcoded
setting so programs switch from off_t to off64_t whether they need to or
not. This does the right thing on old 32-bit archs and is harmless on
64-bit and new 32-bit.
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 08:50:05PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Also, the vast majority of packages don't trigger this warning as they
> > request LFS unconditionally instead of trying to autodetect it.
>
> The lintian warning here:
>
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
Also, the vast majority of packages don't trigger this warning as they
request LFS unconditionally instead of trying to autodetect it.
The lintian warning here:
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/binary-file-built-without-LFS-support.html
says "This can
Hi Adam,
> I'd suggest just marking what we have an idea about. It's not
> like lintian warnings matter for something that's not in the archive...
That's true.
(Implementation braindump for anyone interested in jumping in: we
could simply blacklist x32 directly in checks/binaries.pm, but we
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:51:56AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > false positive: binary-file-built-without-LFS-support on x32
>
> I think the next step here would be to identify which of these
> archs should be skipped for this check:
>
>
>
Hi all,
> false positive: binary-file-built-without-LFS-support on x32
I think the next step here would be to identify which of these
archs should be skipped for this check:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/tree/data/common/architectures
Regards,
--
,''`.
:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.52
Severity: normal
Hi!
For all 32-bit architectures lintian complains if functions using off_t
instead of off64_t are used. On legacy architectures, this is indeed a good
check, as for old ABI compatibility reasons sizeof(off_t) is only 4.
However, new 32-bit
14 matches
Mail list logo
