Hi,
Hi Steven & other kfreebsd porters,
Steven Chamberlain wrote (07 Nov 2014 14:10:15 GMT) :
> Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> For FreeBSD I came up with the attached, hackish workaround
>> using SO_TYPE (widely available), and out of the available
>> protocols in PF_LOCAL (= AF_UNIX), assume that only
>> SOCK_{DGRAM,SEQPACKET,STREAM} are candidates for fd passing.
> Actually it didn't work:
> | $ ./test_fd_passing
> | 1..5
> | ok 1 - Inet socket 3 created connected to 93.95.227.222
> | ok 2 - Unix socket 4 created at /tmp/torsocks-unix-fd-passing.sock
> | ok 3 - Inet socket 3 sent successfully.
> | ok 4 - Data received successfully
> | not ok 5 - Received INET socket through the unix socket
> | # Failed test (test_fd_passing.c:thread_recv() at line 374)
> | # Looks like you failed 1 test of 5.
The patch that introduces the FTBFS on kfreebsd-* fixes an important
bug that I'd like to see fixed in Jessie. Therefore, I intend to ask
the release team for an unblock request ASAP.
But I'd like to give you (kfreebsd porters, upstream) a chance to fix
the FTBFS before I do that. So, my current plan is to wait until
Friday night (CET), and at that point the kfreebsd-* build wasn't
repaired yet, then I'll file the unblock request. I'm sorry I can't
really give you folks more time, as the window to get fixes for
important bugs into Jessie closes early in December.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85zjbzcn2a....@boum.org
