Hi Franz,
On 10/12/15 11:17, Franz Schrober wrote:
> Just looked at what you've modified in this "3.0 (quilt)" package and why you
> had to create a new tarball (see #807555). Following was shown me when I
> diffed the two tarballs:
>
> diff -ruN orig/alfred-2015.1/vis/debugfs.c deb/alfred-2015.1/vis/debugfs.c
> --- orig/alfred-2015.1/vis/debugfs.c 2015-08-04 16:04:17.000000000 +0200
> +++ deb/alfred-2015.1/vis/debugfs.c 2015-11-19 22:01:56.000000000 +0100
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@
> return len+1;
>
> snprintf(buffer, size-1, fmt, debugfs_mountpoint, mesh_iface);
> + buffer[size - 1] = '\0';
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -88,7 +89,9 @@
> /* give up and parse /proc/mounts */
> fp = fopen("/proc/mounts", "r");
> if (fp == NULL) {
> - perror("Error - can't open /proc/mounts for read");
> + fprintf(stderr,
> + "Error - can't open /proc/mounts for read: %s\n",
> + strerror(errno));
> return NULL;
> }
>
>
> These changes SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be made in the debian
> upstream tarball. They don't qualify for a dfgs tarball at all. You have
> debian/patches for that purpose in "3.0 (quilt)" packages.
>
> Btw. These modifications don't seem to have been forwarded. According to
> codesearch.debian.net, at least batctl should also receive this patch. There
> are most likely more projects using it because these functions are from the
> perf project source code in the linux kernel tree
Hm. I do not recall to have performed these changes. Can only
investigate next weekend.
Are we possibly just looking at different versions? Anyway, your
scrutiny is appreciated.
Would you possibly want to adopt the package - and close both bugs?
Best,
Steffen
