Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:39:53 +0100 From: "Herbert J. Skuhra" <herbert@oslo.ath.cx> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compilation problem since SA-15:25 for FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <20151030103953.GB27206@oslo.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <20151030102903.GT97830@glebius.int.ru> 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> <20151030101811.GA27206@oslo.ath.cx> <20151030102903.GT97830@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:29:03PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Herbert, > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:18:11AM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote: > H> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:24:03AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > H> > Guillaume Bibaut <freebsd-security@iaelu.net> writes: > H> > > Herbert J. Skuhra <herbert@oslo.ath.cx> writes: > H> > > > OK, with 'patch -p0 < /path/to/ntp-102.patch' I get only [...] > H> > > As far as I know, the SA does not mention 'patch -p0'. Shouldn’t this > H> > > be mentioned? > H> > > H> > BSD patch(1) assumes -p0. GNU patch(1) does not. I assume Herbert is > H> > used to GNU patch(1) and used -p0 out of habit. It is harmless, but not > H> > necessary. > H> > H> I simply tried '-p0' because the instructions in the SA didn't work at > H> all! With '-p0' I end up with a src tree that builds at least (only a > H> few man pages failed to patch). Tested on stable/10 and head. > H> > H> % fetch ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/10.2-RELEASE/src.txz > H> % fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:25/ntp-102.patch.bz2 > H> % tar xfJ src.txz > H> % bunzip2 ntp-102.patch.bz2 > H> % cd usr/src > H> > H> Apply the patches from the other SAs (doesn't make any difference). They > H> apply cleanly. > H> > H> % patch < ../../ntp-102.patch > H> > H> A lot of *.c, *.h and *.orig files are created in the wrong place! > H> > H> So can anyone confirm that the ntp patches in the SA are correct and we > H> are just too stupid to use patch? > > What does patch -v say for you? stable/10 (r290017): % patch -v patch 2.0-12u10 FreeBSD head (r289783): % patch -v patch 2.0-12u11 FreeBSD -- Herbert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151030103953.GB27206>