On 2019/02/20 22:25, Nam Nguyen wrote: > > Aaron Bieber <aa...@bolddaemon.com> writes: > > Nam, you still want maintainer? > > OK abieber@ for Nam's diff. Builds / wget's things fine here. > > Unit tests and fuzz tests run by `make test' now pass. The main benefit > from this was removing a hardcoded `-ldl', which does not exist on > OpenBSD. Then, I ensured some missing symbols were included in a static > library called `libgnu.a.' > > From my discussion with upstream > (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2019-02/msg00026.html): > > We exclude the fuzzer test data from the tarball to not blow it up too > > much. These test are mainly interesting for developers when using ASAN / > > UBSAN builds (or valgrind test runs). > > > The test data comes mainly from OSS-Fuzz and covers all kinds of code > > paths (though we are far away from 100%). > > As is, the proposed diff will patch fuzz tests to link properly but skip > the fuzz tests due to missing fuzz/*.in and fuzz/*.repro input files. > It runs unit tests as before (i.e., I omitted the `pre-test' target in > the diff). > > I am attaching test logs that show that with the `pre-test' target, fuzz > tests pass and unit tests pass. > - test.log: output from ports tree `make test' > - wget_css_fuzzer.log: log file found in fuzz/ > > Questions: > 1. Do we want fuzz tests? If so, should I clone the git repo and then > copy the fuzz/*.in and fuzz/*.repro files? This seems a bit > messy, since it relies on a tarball and git repo. > > 2. Should we bother including these "fuzz patches" since I got them > directly from git head after upstream incorporated my feedback? Or, > we could wait until the next release of wget to avoid polluting the > ports tree with patches.
It's good to have this fixed upstream but it doesn't really seem to add much to the port at the moment. I would go with the plain update for now.
