Hi,
Patrik Lundin writes:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:34:46PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2015/10/05 22:22, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>> > The 1.4.8.2 version of opendnssec was just released. This version
>> > incorporates the above mentioned fixes. You will find the port attached.
>>
>>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:34:46PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/10/05 22:22, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > The 1.4.8.2 version of opendnssec was just released. This version
> > incorporates the above mentioned fixes. You will find the port attached.
>
> Looks good to me. I've reserved uid/g
On 2015/10/05 22:22, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> The 1.4.8.2 version of opendnssec was just released. This version
> incorporates the above mentioned fixes. You will find the port attached.
Looks good to me. I've reserved uid/gid 757 so PLIST can be updated.
Only one thing I'm unsure about, I'd welcom
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> Just a quick update: both the segfault on i386 and the lockup on macppc
> has been fixed on the development branch.
>
> I'll send an updated port as soon as the fixes are available in a
> release which may be out in the upcoming w
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:32:24PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>
> Very nice! Yes, asking upstream is the right thing to do.
>
> If they don't plan to do a release with that stack size problem
> addressed, I think it would be ok to import opendnssec with a temporary
> patch.
>
Just
Patrik Lundin writes:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:10:33AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>>
>> The summary for now looks like this:
>> Working: amd64, sparc64
>> Broken: i386, macppc
>>
>> Is there some relation between threading and 32/64 bit? It is the main
>> thing that sticks out currently, s
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:10:33AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> The summary for now looks like this:
> Working: amd64, sparc64
> Broken: i386, macppc
>
> Is there some relation between threading and 32/64 bit? It is the main
> thing that sticks out currently, since sparc64 rules out an endian
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:25:52PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> I did not see the problem on amd64 or sparc64 at least. I am currently
> building stuff on a fresh macppc snapshot to see what happens there.
> After that I am out of platforms :).
>
So this is interesting. It turns out ods has p
Stuart Henderson writes:
> On 2015/06/22 13:24, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> Stuart Henderson writes:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > 2. The i386 problems are a bit concerning, it seems quite unlikely that
>> > they will only affect i386.
>>
>> I'll take a look at them this evening, had to upda
On 2015/06/22 13:24, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Stuart Henderson writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > 2. The i386 problems are a bit concerning, it seems quite unlikely that
> > they will only affect i386.
>
> I'll take a look at them this evening, had to update my i386 box.
>
> > softhsm is prob
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:11:05PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>
> That's what I used, and I can easily reproduce the problem. Sadly the
> core file doesn't help me much in finding the cause of the segfault, and
> when running under gdb ods-signerd just spins endlessly. Sucks...
>
Y
Patrik Lundin writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 01:24:35PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> Stuart Henderson writes:
>>
>> > 2. The i386 problems are a bit concerning, it seems quite unlikely that
>> > they will only affect i386.
>>
>> I'll take a look at them this evening, had to upd
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 01:24:35PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Stuart Henderson writes:
>
> > 2. The i386 problems are a bit concerning, it seems quite unlikely that
> > they will only affect i386.
>
> I'll take a look at them this evening, had to update my i386 box.
>
Awesome! Ju
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:22:41AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> 2. The i386 problems are a bit concerning, it seems quite unlikely that
> they will only affect i386.
>
I did not see the problem on amd64 or sparc64 at least. I am currently
building stuff on a fresh macppc snapshot to see wh
Stuart Henderson writes:
[...]
> 2. The i386 problems are a bit concerning, it seems quite unlikely that
> they will only affect i386.
I'll take a look at them this evening, had to update my i386 box.
> softhsm is probably easier to test so let's look at that first. I'm
> fairly busy at the m
On 2015/06/21 05:58, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:57:35AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:23:49PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You will find the latest ports attached
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:57:35AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:23:49PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > >
> > > You will find the latest ports attached. Except for marking opendnssec
> > > broken on i386
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:23:49PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> >
> > You will find the latest ports attached. Except for marking opendnssec
> > broken on i386 I have also updated the version from 1.4.6 to 1.4.7, and
> > I have conv
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> You will find the latest ports attached. Except for marking opendnssec
> broken on i386 I have also updated the version from 1.4.6 to 1.4.7, and
> I have converted databases/mysql dependencies to databases/mariadb.
>
Since there
Hello again!
>
> I have now been updating the ports for both opendnssec and softhsm to
> the latest versions (opendnssec 1.4.6 and softhsm 1.3.7). While doing
> this I extended my testing from amd64/sparc64 to i386. Sadly this
> revealed a segfault in ods-signerd (which was present in 1.4.5 as wel
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:48:41AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> Is no one interested in this? I think it is a nice complement to nsd in
> base for automated DNSSEC.
>
I have now been updating the ports for both opendnssec and softhsm to
the latest versions (opendnssec 1.4.6 and softhsm 1.3.7)
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:27:52PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> The ports are now at a state where i feel they are suitable for import.
>
Is no one interested in this? I think it is a nice complement to nsd in
base for automated DNSSEC.
Regards,
Patrik Lundin
Hello,
The ports are now at a state where i feel they are suitable for import.
Some remaining questions:
* Do people agree "daemon" is the correct syslog facility to use? The
upstream manual recommends the use of the localX ones. (Noted on this
page: https://wiki.opendnssec.org/display/DOCS
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:55:33PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>
> It is not about this particular occurrence. If you replace it by
> a strlcpy call, you will probably see the same warning, coming from
> another strcpy call elsewhere.
>
> Propose upstream strl* and snprintf as alterna
Patrik Lundin writes:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 07:24:00PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>>
>> First up is this one:
>> ===
>> pin.c: In function 'hsm_shm_open':
>> pin.c:209: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
>> ===
>>
>> Next we have this one:
>> ===
>> hsmspeed.c:38:1: warning: "
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 07:24:00PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> First up is this one:
> ===
> pin.c: In function 'hsm_shm_open':
> pin.c:209: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
> ===
>
> Next we have this one:
> ===
> hsmspeed.c:38:1: warning: "PTHREAD_THREADS_MAX" redefined
> In
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:24:11PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> I guess I will have to look into how to disabled -pedantic in the build
> then.
>
Disabling -pedantic was easy to do at configure time, using
--disable-pedantic. Now I have started looking at the remaining
warnings.
I am constan
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:04:19AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> This is due to differences between C compilers. gcc 4.8 and clang don't
> warn for this with -pedantic, gcc 4.2.1 does.
>
> I think -pedantic is fairly pointless in ports and should be removed,
> but I would also report it to nlne
This is due to differences between C compilers. gcc 4.8 and clang don't
warn for this with -pedantic, gcc 4.2.1 does.
I think -pedantic is fairly pointless in ports and should be removed,
but I would also report it to nlnetlabs as an ldns bug, I think the best
approach would be to remove the surpl
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:57:50PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> The opendnssec port is a work in progress. The most annoying thing
> while building currently is the warnings regarding "comma at end of
> enumerator list" which seems to be the result of inconsistent use of
> "-std=c99" which i am
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:23:52PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Some quick comments from a read-through of the files (but
> not building/testing yet) :-
>
> opendnssec README:
> - should follow style from ports/infrastructure/templates/README.template
I have updated the README to reflect READ
On 2014/05/07 22:57, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I thought I would take a second look at porting opendnssec and softhsm
> since last time my softhsm adventure grinded to a halt due to libtool
> issues
> (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=137054816021002&w=2).
>
> The attached softhsm port
Hello,
I thought I would take a second look at porting opendnssec and softhsm
since last time my softhsm adventure grinded to a halt due to libtool
issues
(http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=137054816021002&w=2).
The attached softhsm port is based on what sthen@ sent out in that
thread with some
33 matches
Mail list logo
