On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Greg: Ease of adding, and potentional negative benefits would be very
> nice to have, and if it's going to be in policy, for lintian a way to
> check for it.
Purpose:
PT_GNU_STACK is used to mark binaries which require a
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The recommended practice has always been not to submit bug reports for
> things that would result in a lot of bugs being filed. That is massive
> bug filing, so it should be discussed first.
Just to clarify, I never intended (and sti
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:13:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > > Yes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian
> > warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:13:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please writ
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian
> > warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian
> warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before a lintian
> warning exists is not polite.
As far as
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > That's the correct explanation, yes. It has never been a bug to build
> > a package using stable if the dependencies are compatible with the
> > ones in testing. In this case, Pre
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I made a statistic on my machine:
> > 1341 are '-' and 76 are '?' so less than 1% has the problem.
> >
> > More importantly, there are all binaries that have been build a long
> > t
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I made a statistic on my machine:
> 1341 are '-' and 76 are '?' so less than 1% has the problem.
>
> More importantly, there are all binaries that have been build a long
> time ago, with the exception of diffutils and rcs binaries.
>
> Since diffuti
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 02:51:23PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Greg Norris wrote:
>
> > Package: diff
> > Version: 2.8.1-9
> > Severity: minor
> >
> > The binaries appear to have been built without the PT_GNU_STACK header,
> > which makes the 2.6.10 kernel enable read-impli
reassign 291631 policy
thanks
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 03:49:00AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Last time I read policy, there was no requirement about PT_GNU_STACK
> headers or anything like that. Please change policy before submitting
> bug reports about this, even if they are minor.
So, let's f
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 02:51:23PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I closed this bug because there must be literally hundreds of packages
> like this and I consider premature to submit bugs for all of them.
I disagree on this point (being premature, not your estimate of the
affected packages), but
reassign 291631 lintian
severity 291631 wishlist
thanks
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Greg Norris wrote:
> Package: diff
> Version: 2.8.1-9
> Severity: minor
>
> The binaries appear to have been built without the PT_GNU_STACK header,
> which makes the 2.6.10 kernel enable read-implies-exec behaviour. Th
Package: diff
Version: 2.8.1-9
Severity: minor
The binaries appear to have been built without the PT_GNU_STACK header,
which makes the 2.6.10 kernel enable read-implies-exec behaviour. This
in turn causes problems under SELinux, because executable stacks are not
typically allowed for legacy binar
15 matches
Mail list logo
