Re: Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

(Removed bug from CC, this is not about the bug anymore.) * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [160328 10:45]: > On 03/28/2016 01:18 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > >> The PTS says "LowNMU" for ruby2.3 which clearly means "Do an NMU without > >> asking if you want to fix

Re: Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

* Geert Uytterhoeven [160328 10:33]: > > I really don't want to add another patch except for critical issues > > (and that are likely to be applied to 2.3) at this point - so ... No. > > "tail call overwriting the (non-existing) argument" sounds like a security > issue that

Re: Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > "tail call overwriting the (non-existing) argument" sounds like a security > issue that may be exploitable, even on non-m68k. It's only a problem if the argument is passed on the stack. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG

RFS: ruby-aruba, ruby-berkshelf-api-client

Hi team! Please upload: - ruby-aruba 0.14.1-2. I've only dropped unneeded ruby-event-bus from dependencies. - ruby-berkshelf-api-client 2.0.2-1. New upstream version and tests are run during build process. Thanks in advance.

Re: Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

On 03/28/2016 01:18 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >> The PTS says "LowNMU" for ruby2.3 which clearly means "Do an NMU without >> asking if you want to fix something" [1]. If that's not what you want, >> don't use that tag. > > You're mistaken. The "tag" is per-maintainer, and you need to look

Re: Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [160327 23:00]: >> Here's an updated patch which contains the actual changes that upstream >> committed to the git repository to close the upstream bug