1 |
On 15-05-2008 15:25:02 +0200, Markus Duft wrote: |
2 |
> > Thanks for the in depth explanation. I'd not be surprised if Solaris |
3 |
> > actually has the same problem. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> If solaris supports ssp, yes, i think so too. |
6 |
|
7 |
I think it does support stack smashing protector stuff ;) |
8 |
|
9 |
> > I've no idea of it in the main tree, but since it doesn't even compile |
10 |
> > on Linux, I'd say, keep it masked. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Yeah, but maybe disabling the ssp for configure is the right way to |
13 |
> go, since ssp is explicitly disabled when building gcc. I don't think |
14 |
> that it will help sitting it out. |
15 |
|
16 |
gentoo-x86 has to figure this out for sure. SSP is a security thing, |
17 |
and you don't *ever* want it to be disabled on a thing like SSH if you |
18 |
enabled it for GCC (like hardened profiles do). |
19 |
|
20 |
> > If Interix needs it, and has it compiling all the way, Markus use |
21 |
> > package.unmask in the interix profile. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I could live with 4.7 too, if I must... also somehow I didn't manage |
24 |
> to get it unmasked other than commenting out the mask... I tried |
25 |
> almost half an hour with package.unmask in different locations, |
26 |
> etc.... it didn't work *arg*... |
27 |
|
28 |
It may be that package.unmask doesn't work in the profiles. Sorry, |
29 |
never checked that. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Fabian Groffen |
34 |
Gentoo on a different level |
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |