Bug#438385: NMU awardeco #438385: fails on 64-bit platforms
Hello, I'm ready for a NMU, attached I put the diff. Now I'll upload the package in delayed. the patch contain: - fix on 64-bit architecture: use C99 "fixed"-bit integer - fix of undeclared function: a potential bug, which can give problem on some architectures. Considering the package pourpose, maybe Architecture: "any" is to wide. - fix a return of local stack variables PS: only the first is a rc bug (#438385), but the second adn the third are potential rc or important bugs. ciao cate diff -u awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog --- awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +awardeco (0.2-2.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-Maintainer Upload at BSP in Zurich: fix rc bug + * Use the C99 bit length integer, to be safe on various archs + * fix also headers inclusion (memcpy: , exit: + + -- Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:07:12 +0100 + awardeco (0.2-2) unstable; urgency=low * Fix FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD (Closes: #414235). only in patch2: unchanged: --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h 2006-08-05 11:38:03.0 +0200 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h 2008-01-16 08:12:10.0 +0100 +@@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ + #define AWARDECO_H 1 + + #include ++#include + + typedef unsigned char byte; +-typedef unsigned short word; +-typedef unsigned long dword; ++typedef uint16_t word; ++typedef uint32_t dword; + + #define Xtract 0x10 + #define List 0x11 only in patch2: unchanged: --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/40_fixheader.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/40_fixheader.patch @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c 2006-08-05 11:38:03.0 +0200 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-16 08:25:31.0 +0100 +@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ + #define AWARDFUNC_H 1 + + #include ++#include ++#include + + typedef unsigned char byte; + typedef unsigned short word; only in patch2: unchanged: --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/40_fixwarnings.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/40_fixwarnings.patch @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-16 08:28:09.0 +0100 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-16 08:30:41.0 +0100 +@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ + + byte *GetFullDate(byte *mon, byte *day, byte *year) + { +- byte *Months[]={"", ++ static byte const*const Months[]={"", + "January", + "February", + "March", +@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ + "October", + "November", + "December"}; +- byte Buf[20]; ++ static byte Buf[20]; // Warning: we return this buffer, so place it in heap not on stack! + sprintf(Buf,"%2.2s",year); + + if((atoi(Buf)>=0) && (atoi(Buf)<70)) sprintf(Buf,"%.2s %s %s%.2s",day,Months[atoi(mon)],"20",year);
Bug#438385: NMU awardeco #438385: fails on 64-bit platforms
Hi, On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:51:48AM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > I'm ready for a NMU, attached I put the diff. > Now I'll upload the package in delayed. Thanks, feel free to upload, but please see comments below. > Considering the package pourpose, maybe Architecture: "any" > is to wide. Nope, don't think so. The package is supposed to work everywhere. > diff -u awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog > --- awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog > +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog > @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ > +awardeco (0.2-2.1) unstable; urgency=low > + > + * Non-Maintainer Upload at BSP in Zurich: fix rc bug > + * Use the C99 bit length integer, to be safe on various archs Please add "(Closes: #438385)" here. Also, please end all changelog lines with a full stop and start sentences with capital letters for consistency. > --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch > +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h > +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h 2006-08-05 11:38:03.0 +0200 > awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h 2008-01-16 08:12:10.0 +0100 > +@@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ > + #define AWARDECO_H 1 > + > + #include > ++#include > + > + typedef unsigned char byte; Maybe make this uint8_t then, too, for consistency? Yes, it's more cosmetical, but still. Cheers, Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438385: NMU awardeco #438385: fails on 64-bit platforms
diff -u awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog --- awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +awardeco (0.2-2.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-Maintainer Upload at BSP in Zurich: fix rc bug + * Use the C99 bit length integer, to be safe on various archs Please add "(Closes: #438385)" here. Also, please end all changelog lines with a full stop and start sentences with capital letters for consistency. oops. Ok. the first was a cut-copy error trying cdbs-edit-patch (nice tools!). Never realized about cosmetic consistency, I'll fix also that. --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h2006-08-05 11:38:03.0 +0200 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h2008-01-16 08:12:10.0 +0100 +@@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ + #define AWARDECO_H 1 + + #include ++#include + + typedef unsigned char byte; Maybe make this uint8_t then, too, for consistency? Yes, it's more cosmetical, but still. yes. This change doesn't harm: in C, char is a byte and in POSIX, char is 8 bit. So I take a smaller NMU. But reading the code it seems ok to do this conversion. I've some other minor stylistic C correction, i.e. "0x;" is wrong, it should have a "u" postfix. (and "ul" if we care about real C, but anyway POSIX int is 32-bit or more.), but for this I think I (or you) should contact upstream author. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438385: NMU awardeco #438385: fails on 64-bit platforms
Hello, Now I upload (still to DELAYED) the new version, diff attached. I have fixed the problems you pointed in last mail, and I noticed I forgot one part of the uintXX_t patch. BTW: lintian give two warning (on your and on this NMU) - policy version - empty /usr/bin I see you install the binary on /bin and not on /usr/bin. Is really what you want? Do you know why pool http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/awardeco/ contains only i386 and amd64 ? But the package should be already build and installed on all archs: http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=awardeco ciao cate diff -u awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog --- awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +awardeco (0.2-2.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-Maintainer Upload at BSP in Zurich: fix rc bug. + * Use the C99 bit length integer, to be safe on various +architectures (Closes: #438385). + * Fix also headers inclusion (memcpy: , exit: ). + + -- Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:17:08 +0100 + awardeco (0.2-2) unstable; urgency=low * Fix FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD (Closes: #414235). only in patch2: unchanged: --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/30_fixeduint.patch @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardeco.h 2006-08-05 11:38:03.0 +0200 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardeco.h 2008-01-17 08:25:23.0 +0100 +@@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ + #define AWARDECO_H 1 + + #include ++#include + +-typedef unsigned char byte; +-typedef unsigned short word; +-typedef unsigned long dword; ++typedef uint8_t byte; ++typedef uint16_t word; ++typedef uint32_t dword; + + #define Xtract 0x10 + #define List 0x11 +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c 2006-08-05 11:38:03.0 +0200 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-17 08:26:24.0 +0100 +@@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ + #define AWARDFUNC_H 1 + + #include ++#include + +-typedef unsigned char byte; +-typedef unsigned short word; +-typedef unsigned long dword; ++typedef uint8_t byte; ++typedef uint16_t word; ++typedef uint32_t dword; + + #define Xtract 0x10 + #define List 0x11 only in patch2: unchanged: --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/40_fixheader.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/40_fixheader.patch @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-17 08:26:37.0 +0100 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-17 08:27:05.0 +0100 +@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ + + #include + #include ++#include ++#include + + typedef uint8_t byte; + typedef uint16_t word; only in patch2: unchanged: --- awardeco-0.2.orig/debian/patches/40_fixwarnings.patch +++ awardeco-0.2/debian/patches/40_fixwarnings.patch @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +diff -Nur awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c +--- awardeco-0.2/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-16 08:28:09.0 +0100 awardeco-0.2.new/src/awardfnc.c 2008-01-16 08:30:41.0 +0100 +@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ + + byte *GetFullDate(byte *mon, byte *day, byte *year) + { +- byte *Months[]={"", ++ static byte const*const Months[]={"", + "January", + "February", + "March", +@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ + "October", + "November", + "December"}; +- byte Buf[20]; ++ static byte Buf[20]; // Warning: we return this buffer, so place it in heap not on stack! + sprintf(Buf,"%2.2s",year); + + if((atoi(Buf)>=0) && (atoi(Buf)<70)) sprintf(Buf,"%.2s %s %s%.2s",day,Months[atoi(mon)],"20",year);
Bug#438385: NMU awardeco #438385: fails on 64-bit platforms
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 08:50:29AM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > Now I upload (still to DELAYED) the new version, > diff attached. Thanks! > lintian give two warning (on your and on this NMU) > - policy version That's non-critical, I'll update it in the next upload. > - empty /usr/bin > I see you install the binary on /bin and not > on /usr/bin. Is really what you want? Oops, no. That's a bug indeed. I'll fix it in the next upload. > Do you know why pool > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/awardeco/ > contains only i386 and amd64 ? > But the package should be already build and installed on all archs: > http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=awardeco Hm, no idea. It does build fine everywhere though, see http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=awardeco Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]