Prev: Integration between portconf and port options
Next: Sourceforge has changed?
From: niels on 22 Jul 2010 15:29
Synopsis: [MAINTAINER] security/botan: update to 1.8.9

State-Changed-From-To: feedback->open
State-Changed-By: niels
State-Changed-When: Thu Jul 22 19:28:22 UTC 2010
State-Changed-Why:
Throw back in the pool. Apologies, I don't want to delay this longer (lack of time)



Responsible-Changed-From-To: niels->ports
Responsible-Changed-By: niels
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jul 22 19:28:22 UTC 2010
Responsible-Changed-Why:


http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=147935
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Niels Heinen on 22 Jul 2010 15:40
The following reply was made to PR ports/147935; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Niels Heinen <niels(a)FreeBSD.org>
To: Lapo Luchini <lapo(a)lapo.it>
Cc: bug-followup(a)FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/147935: [MAINTAINER] security/botan: update to 1.8.9
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:30:01 +0200

Hi Lapo,
sorry for delaying this one. I lack the time to follow up and threw the
PR back in the pool.

Niels

On 06/30/10 15:11, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> I asked the author (Jack Lloyd) about that, and that's what he told me:
>
>> It only shows up on 32 bit compilations. It's actually caused by a bug
>> in GCC, fixed in 4.5.0 (PR 13358). It seems strange to me that this
>> would be 'too many' warnings - it's effectively one warning.
>>
>> There is no actual functionality problem that this warning is pointing
>> out; GCC is still doing exactly the right thing, just printing an
>> obnoxious warning for every 64-bit constant it sees that is impossible
>> to disable via a -Wno-obnoxious-warning flag. The workaround is to
>> append ULL to each of the constants. I don't want to do that upstream
>> because every other compiler accepts them without any suffix, but some
>> Windows compilers will reject the suffixed version.
>
> I wonder if it's the best approach to have a hundreds' line patch adding
> ULLs to a DES cryptographic routine only to silence warnings that
> produce no problems (except spamming the console, of course!).
>
> IMHO it's probably better to avoid that, but I can put some clever
> inline-sed code to add them, if you think that's really necessary.
>
> PS: it would probably be nice to add LICENSE lines in the Makefile
> though, as in the attached patch.

--
Niels Heinen
FreeBSD committer | www.freebsd.org
PGP: 0x5FE39B80

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: linimon on 22 Jul 2010 15:58
Synopsis: [MAINTAINER] security/botan: update to 1.8.9

Responsible-Changed-From-To: ports->freebsd-ports-bugs
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jul 22 19:58:19 UTC 2010
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Canonicalize assignment.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=147935
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Integration between portconf and port options
Next: Sourceforge has changed?