Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:18:11 +0100 From: "Herbert J. Skuhra" <herbert@oslo.ath.cx> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compilation problem since SA-15:25 for FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <20151030101811.GA27206@oslo.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <86wpu4bw7w.fsf@desk.des.no> References: <4D69BAFF-7447-4A1F-ABB8-686CA34090F3@iaelu.net> <20151027114642.GA7848@oslo.ath.cx> <4043BA45-F5A5-4218-93F2-C320DE65EB6D@iaelu.net> <20151027125913.GB7848@oslo.ath.cx> <20151027150144.GD7848@oslo.ath.cx> <AA734831-0FE8-4E8B-BEED-64B9D020C201@iaelu.net> <86wpu4bw7w.fsf@desk.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:24:03AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Guillaume Bibaut <freebsd-security@iaelu.net> writes: > > Herbert J. Skuhra <herbert@oslo.ath.cx> writes: > > > OK, with 'patch -p0 < /path/to/ntp-102.patch' I get only [...] > > As far as I know, the SA does not mention 'patch -p0'. Shouldn’t this > > be mentioned? > > BSD patch(1) assumes -p0. GNU patch(1) does not. I assume Herbert is > used to GNU patch(1) and used -p0 out of habit. It is harmless, but not > necessary. I simply tried '-p0' because the instructions in the SA didn't work at all! With '-p0' I end up with a src tree that builds at least (only a few man pages failed to patch). Tested on stable/10 and head. % fetch ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/10.2-RELEASE/src.txz % fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:25/ntp-102.patch.bz2 % tar xfJ src.txz % bunzip2 ntp-102.patch.bz2 % cd usr/src Apply the patches from the other SAs (doesn't make any difference). They apply cleanly. % patch < ../../ntp-102.patch A lot of *.c, *.h and *.orig files are created in the wrong place! So can anyone confirm that the ntp patches in the SA are correct and we are just too stupid to use patch? Thanks. -- Herbert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151030101811.GA27206>