Summary: snort: fix m4 causes out of memory during configure Tech Review: Jie Huang Gatekeeper: Liezhi Yang Lockdown Approval (if needed): Branch Tag: wr-8.0-20151008
IP Statement (form link or license statement, usually automated): Crypto URL(s) (if needed): see http://wiki.wrs.com/PBUeng/LinuxProductDivisionExportProcess Parent Template (where applicable): ------------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n ------------------- ----------- docs/tech-pubs n tests n build system y host dependencies n RPM/packaging n toolchain n kernel code n user code n configuration files n target configuration n Other n Applicable to Yocto/upstream n New Kernel Warnings n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- commit 04542e758db84f4d20d9df09b204c6164b05f654 Author: Zhiquan Li <zhiquan...@windriver.com> Date: Thu Oct 22 13:28:47 2015 +0800 snort: fix m4 causes out of memory during configure Issue: LIN8-299 There is an incorrect m4_define() in configure.in which will result in an infinite recursion, and it doesn't make sense, since snort 2.9.7 it has been commented out. We follow this solution to fix it. Upstream-Status: Backport (LOCAL REV: NOT UPSTREAM) -- Sent to oe-devel on 20151023 Signed-off-by: Zhiquan Li <zhiquan...@windriver.com> Added Files: ------------ .../snort/snort/m4-oom-during-configure.patch | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) Removed Files: -------------- None. Remaining Changes (diffstat): ----------------------------- .../recipes-connectivity/snort/snort_2.9.6.0.bb | 16 +++------------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) Testing Applicable to: ---------------------- common_pc_64 standard glibc_std Testing Commands: ----------------- 1 configure --enable-board=intel-x86-64 --enable-kernel=standard --enable-rootfs=glibc-std 2 make snort Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- The packages of snort can be created successfully. Conditions of submission: ------------------------- N/A Arch built boot boardname ------------------------------------- MIPS n n MIPS64 n n MIPS64n32 n n ARM32 n n ARM64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y n PPC n n PPC64 n n SPARC64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review/gatekeep because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You've not properly listed things in the proper sections from the perspective of the SCM for new, removed, and changed files ___ You have failed to nominate a proper person for gatekeep or review. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ Your patches have timestamps and/or index lines ___ You have failed to put in a proper CQID into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put internal data like CQID commits into customer visible files (things shipped directly as patches etc). ___ Your "Signed-off-by:" is either missing or invalid ___ You have not built for enough appropriate architecture families, and/or you've chosen an arch family that is guaranteed to succeed. ___ You've included large amounts of useless and irrelevant diffstat information. ___ You've included binary files in your RR which appear as a large number of lines of useless "uuencode" information. ___ You have changed a host tool and not tested on enough supported hosts. ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have carried forward some ancient/meaningless internal WRS CVS tags (i.e. $Id$) in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have not clearly specified the origin of some/all of your added content (i.e. patches from a mailing list, a git tree, done internally?) ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have dropped patches that were used on the old pkg version without clearly justifying why they are no longer needed. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have added a new package, but not indicated that the package addition matches the Makefile template specified by the Userspace group ___ New Kernel Warnings were created and you did not validate that there are no corresponding functional problems. ----------- Original of this form hosted at: http://git.wrs.com/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/bin/tree/etc/review.txt From: Zhiquan Li <zhiquan...@windriver.com> Subject: In-Reply-To: -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
