Fernando de Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote: >Em 12-07-2013 15:39, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: >> Em 12-07-2013 00:36, DJ Lucas escreveu: >>> DJ Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Fernando de Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote: > >... > >>>>> First, the icedtea-2.4.0-add_cacerts-1.patch was first to finally >fail >> >> This seems not to be related at all with the problem. Attaching a >image >> of a popup from the plugin, do not know if it comes from a problem >with >> the patch or is just the "new way" the plugin acts, for security >reasons. >> >> Also, a make with a new "complete" icedtea-2.4.1-add_cacerts-1.patch >> that I rediffed is running (run out of space, had to restart). When >it >> finishes, I will send the patch to this list, and ask you, please, to >> inspect it. > >There was still a problem with OpenJDK-1.7.0.40-2.4.1, because with the >new icedtea-2.4.1-add_cacerts-1.patch, the popup returned to appear >only >with the unsigned "unsaved" applets (actually, have not tried to save >confirmation to execute an unsigned applet). For the applet from Oracle >at www.java.com that I sent an image in previous post, no applet >reappeared, even if since last appearance I have not marked the "always >trust..." option (which is what I mean by "saving"). > >Thus, this time it seems that java could find the certificate? > >I am still going to rebuild in the other machine, so I can test the >sites which are the ones essential for me. Only that machine is allowed >by the sites, two have very restrict security exigences, I disagree >with >them in some points, and I do not wish to register a new one there, for >security reasons (this one is for general use, my main machine; that >one >is specialized, just for the three sites). > >Anyway, the new patch is attached. > >Thanks again you all for these great books. > >HOW IT WAS GENERATED AND TWO DOUBTS > >First, the creation: > >a. applied the other two patches to icedtea-2.4.1.orig and >icedtea-2.4.1 >b. applied the old cacerts patch from DJ to icedtea-2.4.1 and two >chunks >failed >c. edited the files to add the two wanted but failed modifications of >icedtea-2.4.1.orig/Makefile.am > > i. at line 801 (previously at 746) >- clean-add-nss clean-add-tzdata-support clean-add-tzdata-support-debug >clean-cryptocheck >+ clean-add-nss clean-add-tzdata-support clean-add-tzdata-support-debug >clean-cryptocheck \ >+ clean-cacerts clean-cacerts-debug > > ii. at line 836 (previously 776) >- clean-add-archive clean-add-archive-debug clean-add-archive-boot >clean-cryptocheck >+ clean-add-archive clean-add-archive-debug clean-add-archive-boot >clean-cryptocheck \ >+ clean-cacerts clean-cacerts-debug > >Now, > >diff -Naurp icedtea-2.4.1.orig icedtea-2.4.1 | tee >icedtea-2.4.1-add_cacerts-1.patch > >DJ, developers, if you have time, please check this patch. > >I do not understand : > >1. Why y I have the lines 347 and 348 > >+DISTRIBUTION_PATCHES = patches/lfs-fixed-paths.patch >+ > >2. When applied in the build, had two lines offset.
IcedTea is just a build harness for OpenJDK... basically just auto tools and an insane number of patches itself to make the build behave on many more systems. That is probably cruft left over from the fixed paths patch...which may or may not be necessary nowadays. Sorry that i can't be more definitive, but i simply haven't had the time to keep up as of late. --DJ -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
