On 04/29/2013 12:18 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 08:11 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> I have re-introduced the line removed by mistake.
>>
>> It seems to be completely OK now,
>>
> Thanks, I will push shortly then, barring further objections.
>
>> thanks a LOT for your pati
On 04/29/2013 08:11 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I have re-introduced the line removed by mistake.
>
> It seems to be completely OK now,
>
Thanks, I will push shortly then, barring further objections.
> thanks a LOT for your patience.
>
I think you and the other reviewers should be thanke
Hi!
> I have re-introduced the line removed by mistake.
It seems to be completely OK now, thanks a LOT for your patience. I don't
see any problems and also all test passes for me.
Have a nice day,
Pavel
On 04/27/2013 06:21 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Stefano, this patch is quite hard to follow because of the new
> indentation.
>
Sorry, I now attach a version formatted with the '-w', which should
be free from the noise caused by the indentation change.
> But both checks are saying PASS for me now.
Stefano, this patch is quite hard to follow because of the new
indentation. But both checks are saying PASS for me now.
I have found one possible problem (missing one line):
> -done
> -am__tar="$_am_tar --format=m4_if([$1], [pax], [posix], [$1]) -chf -
> "'"$$tardir"'
> -am__tar_="$
On 04/26/2013 08:29 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 01:48 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>>> Actually, I prefer to keep the checks distinct, and output the problematic
>>> UID/GID as well (makes debugging easier). So I'd rather drop the squash-in
>>> patch you proposed.
>>
>> No problem :).
On 04/26/2013 01:48 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> Actually, I prefer to keep the checks distinct, and output the problematic
>> UID/GID as well (makes debugging easier). So I'd rather drop the squash-in
>> patch you proposed.
>
> No problem :).
>
>>> I'm also quite afraid of testsuite performance
> Actually, I prefer to keep the checks distinct, and output the problematic
> UID/GID as well (makes debugging easier). So I'd rather drop the squash-in
> patch you proposed.
No problem :).
> > I'm also quite afraid of testsuite performance of testsuite - this
> > check costs more than 6 second
On 04/26/2013 01:03 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-04-25 14:19, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> *snip*
>> * THANKS: Likewise.
>> * t/tar-ustar-id-too-high.sh: New test.
>> * t/list-of-tests.mk: Add it.
>> * t/tar2.sh: While at it, tweak and enhance a little.
>> * t/tar3.sh: Likewise.
>> * t/tar-overri
On 04/26/2013 12:48 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi, I'm just thinking aloud here.. I'm ok with this.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> So *ACKing* :) with one simple remark which follows.
>
>> []
>> +# The $UID and $GID variables are not portable, so we need to resort
>> +# to the POSIX-mandated id(1) uti
On 2013-04-25 14:19, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
*snip*
> * THANKS: Likewise.
> * t/tar-ustar-id-too-high.sh: New test.
> * t/list-of-tests.mk: Add it.
> * t/tar2.sh: While at it, tweak and enhance a little.
> * t/tar3.sh: Likewise.
> * t/tar-override.sh: Likewise.
>
> Helped-by: Pavel Raiskup
> Hel
Hi, I'm just thinking aloud here.. I'm ok with this.
> Marc Herbert adds (in bug#8343):
>
> When "configure" is run by a user with an UID bigger than 21 bits,
> BSD pax 3.4 aborts when trying to create the 'conftest.tar' test
> archive and leaves an empty or corrupted conftest.tar fil
On 04/24/2013 02:54 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi, thanks a lot for working on this! I would like to point some notes,
> sorry for doing it so late..
>
No worries, I hadn't merged the patch yet.
>> diff --git a/m4/tar.m4 b/m4/tar.m4
>> index ec8c83e..61c1206 100644
>> --- a/m4/tar.m4
>> +++ b/m4/
Hi, thanks a lot for working on this! I would like to point some notes,
sorry for doing it so late..
> diff --git a/m4/tar.m4 b/m4/tar.m4
> index ec8c83e..61c1206 100644
> --- a/m4/tar.m4
> +++ b/m4/tar.m4
> @@ -81,7 +81,31 @@ do
>AM_RUN_LOG([tardir=conftest.dir && eval $am__tar_ >conftest.ta
On 04/23/2013 05:04 PM, Petr Hracek wrote:
> Hello Stefano,
>
> I was a little bit busy.
>
No worries.
> From my point of view user is not informed that his UID is too big.
> I think that it should be mentioned and visible directly on the screen.
>
But then, following the same logic, we should al
Hello Stefano,
I was a little bit busy.
From my point of view user is not informed that his UID is too big. I
think that it should be mentioned and visible directly on the screen.
But as I mentioned it is my point of view.
Here are results:
test@kiasportyw: ~/mycproject$ ./configure
checking
On 04/22/2013 03:55 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback.
>
> On 04/22/2013 03:21 PM, Petr Hracek wrote:
>> Hello Stefano,
>>
>> thanks for the patch. All is working properly.
>> User is informed that UID is not enough smaller and configure script does
>> not failed.
>
Hello Stefano,
thanks for the patch. All is working properly.
User is informed that UID is not enough smaller and configure script
does not failed.
Result is below:
test@localhost: ~/mycproject$ id
uid=1700(test) gid=1001(test) groups=1001(test)
context=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfine
Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback.
On 04/22/2013 03:21 PM, Petr Hracek wrote:
> Hello Stefano,
>
> thanks for the patch. All is working properly.
> User is informed that UID is not enough smaller and configure script does not
> failed.
>
Good to know the logic is sound. However, I now notice th
tags 13588 + patch
stop
[+cc automake-patches]
Hi Jack, Petr, sorry for the ludicrous delay.
On 03/22/2013 02:39 AM, Jack Kelly wrote:
> Petr Hracek writes:
>
>> Hello Jack and Stefano,
>>
>> Bellow is corrected patch for automake.
>> Jack thank you for corrections. Now the patch looks like be
20 matches
Mail list logo
