On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:29:03PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > 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?
stable/10 (r290017): % patch -v patch 2.0-12u10 FreeBSD head (r289783): % patch -v patch 2.0-12u11 FreeBSD -- Herbert _______________________________________________ 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"
