xfsprogs - not compiled on unstable

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #301252 http://bugs.debian.org/301252

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #301252 http://bugs.debian.org/301252

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:58:30 +0100
From: Bastian Blank <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: xfsprogs - not compiled on unstable

--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Package: xfsprogs
Version: 2.6.26-1
Severity: grave

This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
executable stack, while a unstable build does not do that.

Bastian

--=20
Our missions are peaceful -- not for conquest. When we do battle, it
is only because we have no choice.
  -- Kirk, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5

--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkJC/8YACgkQnw66O/MvCNHwNQCgpYEVJ5YXWfGSJWnoCZuqhUXj
/I8AnjlsLQfMmXY4fqqUAL95FgwMMNCH
=hyW7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5--

[Steve Langasek (vorlon)]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Package: xfsprogs
> Version: 2.6.26-1
> Severity: grave

> This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
> executable stack, while a unstable build does not do that.

I've uploaded recompile-only binNMUs for each of attr, acl, and xfsprogs on
i386, which is the only architecture that should be affected.

Nathan, please be sure to build your binaries against current unstable
systems (chroot or otherwise) in the future when uploading to unstable;
otherwise, we end up with binary packages that are not reproducible using
current tools.

Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:07:34 -0800
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#301252: xfsprogs - not compiled on unstable

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Package: xfsprogs
> Version: 2.6.26-1
> Severity: grave

> This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
> executable stack, while a unstable build does not do that.

I've uploaded recompile-only binNMUs for each of attr, acl, and xfsprogs on
i386, which is the only architecture that should be affected.

Nathan, please be sure to build your binaries against current unstable
systems (chroot or otherwise) in the future when uploading to unstable;
otherwise, we end up with binary packages that are not reproducible using
current tools.

Thanks,
--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCQ0gzKN6ufymYLloRAiJdAKDEfnhXuasZjLD4mTBWwuv5dZdAkACdGT9C
Oz71/dRYSHGgel3ReEncy3U=
=QDy5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--

[LaMont Jones (lamont)]

built with 3.3.4

[Nathan Scott (nathans)]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:07:33PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Package: xfsprogs
> > Version: 2.6.26-1
> > Severity: grave
>
> > This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
> > executable stack, while a unstable build does not do that.
>
> I've uploaded recompile-only binNMUs for each of attr, acl, and xfsprogs on
> i386, which is the only architecture that should be affected.

Thanks Steve. Not sure it worked out for xfsprogs, there was
already a subsequent version queued. I have recompiled latest
xfsprogs with the currente gcc, which I had to install "by hand"
(apt-get upgrade wouldn't get it)... must be some interdependency
issue with some packages here?, cos even this morning I'm seeing
gcc being held back via "apt-get upgrade":

Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  abiword abiword-common base-config build-essential bzflag bzflag-server chbg
  cpp debconf debconf-utils debianutils dialog dmsetup dnsutils docbook-xml
  dpkg e2fsprogs enlightenment eog fetchmail file fileutils fontconfig g++ gcc
  gdk-imlib1 gdm gimp1.2 gnome-core gnome-panel gnome-panel-data gnome-session
  gnome-terminal gnumeric gnupg gs ibritish icewm imlib1 ispell
  libarchive-tar-perl libcupsys2 libfnlib0 libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 libgdk-pixbuf2
  libgnomeprint-bin libgnomeprint-data libgnomeprint15 libgtk2.0-0
  libgtkxmhtml1 libimlib2 libkrb53 libldap2 libmail-audit-perl libnspr4
  libnss3 libpam-modules libpaper1 libpaperg libpng2 libsasl7 libscrollkeeper0
  libxslt1 lilo lintian lsof-2.2 ltp-disc-test lvm2 mailx mount mozilla
  mozilla-browser mozilla-mailnews mozilla-psm mutt nautilus netbase
  nfs-common po-debconf python quota rep-gtk reportbug samba-common sawfish
  scrollkeeper sendmail sgml-data shellutils sodipodi sox sysklogd sysvinit
  tasksel tcpdump textutils util-linux uucp wenglish whiptail xbase-clients
  xchat xchat-common xlibmesa3
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 104 not upgraded.

> Nathan, please be sure to build your binaries against current unstable
> systems (chroot or otherwise) in the future when uploading to unstable;
> otherwise, we end up with binary packages that are not reproducible using
> current tools.

I do follow unstable quite closely, and usually will have done an
apt-get upgrade before building/installing/testing the current xfs
tools -- I got thwarted by the above issue though.

I'll upload a new xfsprogs shortly, I've confirmed the execute bit
is not set on the stack segment via objdump with libhandle built
using the latest unstable gcc.

cheers.

--
Nathan

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <20050329032718.GB10203@frodo>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:27:18 +1000
From: Nathan Scott <email address hidden>
To: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#301252: xfsprogs - not compiled on unstable

--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:07:33PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Package: xfsprogs
> > Version: 2.6.26-1
> > Severity: grave
>=20
> > This package seems to be not built on unstable, libhandle requests
> > executable stack, while a unstable build does not do that.
>=20
> I've uploaded recompile-only binNMUs for each of attr, acl, and xfsprogs =
on
> i386, which is the only architecture that should be affected.

Thanks Steve. Not sure it worked out for xfsprogs, there was
already a subsequent version queued. I have recompiled latest
xfsprogs with the currente gcc, which I had to install "by hand"
(apt-get upgrade wouldn't get it)... must be some interdependency
issue with some packages here?, cos even this morning I'm seeing
gcc being held back via "apt-get upgrade":

Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  abiword abiword-common base-config build-essential bzflag bzflag-server c=
hbg
  cpp debconf debconf-utils debianutils dialog dmsetup dnsutils docbook-xml
  dpkg e2fsprogs enlightenment eog fetchmail file fileutils fontconfig g++ =
gcc
  gdk-imlib1 gdm gimp1.2 gnome-core gnome-panel gnome-panel-data gnome-sess=
ion
  gnome-terminal gnumeric gnupg gs ibritish icewm imlib1 ispell
  libarchive-tar-perl libcupsys2 libfnlib0 libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 libgdk-pixb=
uf2
  libgnomeprint-bin libgnomeprint-data libgnomeprint15 libgtk2.0-0
  libgtkxmhtml1 libimlib2 libkrb53 libldap2 libmail-audit-perl libnspr4
  libnss3 libpam-modules libpaper1 libpaperg libpng2 libsasl7 libscrollkeep=
er0
  libxslt1 lilo lintian lsof-2.2 ltp-disc-test lvm2 mailx mount mozilla
  mozilla-browser mozilla-mailnews mozilla-psm mutt nautilus netbase
  nfs-common po-debconf python quota rep-gtk reportbug samba-common sawfish
  scrollkeeper sendmail sgml-data shellutils sodipodi sox sysklogd sysvinit
  tasksel tcpdump textutils util-linux uucp wenglish whiptail xbase-clients
  xchat xchat-common xlibmesa3
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 104 not upgraded.

> Nathan, please be sure to build your binaries against current unstable
> systems (chroot or otherwise) in the future when uploading to unstable;
> otherwise, we end up with binary packages that are not reproducible using
> current tools.

I do follow unstable quite closely, and usually will have done an
apt-get upgrade before building/installing/testing the current xfs
tools -- I got thwarted by the above issue though.

I'll upload a new xfsprogs shortly, I've confirmed the execute bit
is not set on the stack segment via objdump with libhandle built
using the latest unstable gcc.

cheers.

--=20
Nathan

--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP...