Herbert, On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:18:11AM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote: H> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:24:03AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: H> > Guillaume Bibaut <freebsd-secur...@iaelu.net> writes: H> > > Herbert J. Skuhra <herb...@oslo.ath.cx> writes: H> > > > OK, with 'patch -p0 < /path/to/ntp-102.patch' I get only [...] H> > > As far as I know, the SA does not mention 'patch -p0'. Shouldn’t this H> > > be mentioned? H> > H> > BSD patch(1) assumes -p0. GNU patch(1) does not. I assume Herbert is H> > used to GNU patch(1) and used -p0 out of habit. It is harmless, but not H> > necessary. H> H> I simply tried '-p0' because the instructions in the SA didn't work at H> all! With '-p0' I end up with a src tree that builds at least (only a H> few man pages failed to patch). Tested on stable/10 and head. H> H> % fetch ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/10.2-RELEASE/src.txz H> % fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:25/ntp-102.patch.bz2 H> % tar xfJ src.txz H> % bunzip2 ntp-102.patch.bz2 H> % cd usr/src H> H> Apply the patches from the other SAs (doesn't make any difference). They H> apply cleanly. H> H> % patch < ../../ntp-102.patch H> H> A lot of *.c, *.h and *.orig files are created in the wrong place! H> H> So can anyone confirm that the ntp patches in the SA are correct and we H> are just too stupid to use patch?
What does patch -v say for you? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
