[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#835812: marked as done (jessie-pu: package ccache/3.1.12-2)

Your message dated Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:18:18 +0200
with message-id <CAK8D=phsoZNG-vL7xh0xKC5st=HogHCz+gXNAX7wpvoqUTbojA@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#835812: jessie-pu: package ccache/3.1.12-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #835812,
regarding jessie-pu: package ccache/3.1.12-2
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
835812: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=835812
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Tags: jessie
Severity: normal

To fix #829088 ("ccache don't stop immediately on SIGINT and SIGTERM"), I
propose to upgrade ccache from 3.1.12-1 to 3.1.12-2 in stable-proposed-updates.

The change is a simple one-liner: Call _exit(1) at the end of the signal
handler to exit from e.g. SIGTERM. Without the exit, ccache will resume and run
the compiler again.

See attachment for the proposed update diff relative to 3.1.12-1.

-- Joel

diff -Nru ccache-3.1.12/debian/changelog ccache-3.1.12/debian/changelog
--- ccache-3.1.12/debian/changelog	2016-07-15 19:54:06.000000000 +0200
+++ ccache-3.1.12/debian/changelog	2016-08-28 15:45:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+ccache (3.1.12-2) stable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Exit properly from signal handler (closes: #835460)
+    This fixes a regression in ccache 3.1.10 leading to ccache not dying
+    properly when interrupted by a signal.
+
+ -- Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org>  Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:45:26 +0200
+
 ccache (3.1.12-1) stable; urgency=medium

   * New upstream release 3.1.12 containing important bug fixes (and only
diff -Nru ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/fix_signal_handler_exit.patch ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/fix_signal_handler_exit.patch
--- ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/fix_signal_handler_exit.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/fix_signal_handler_exit.patch	2016-08-28 15:45:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Description: Exit properly from exit handler
+Author: Joel Rosdahl <joel@rosdahl.net>
+
+--- a/ccache.c
++++ b/ccache.c
+@@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ signal_handler(int signo)
+ {
+ 	(void)signo;
+ 	clean_up_pending_tmp_files();
++	_exit(1);
+ }
+
+ static void
diff -Nru ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/series ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/series
--- ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/series	2016-07-15 19:54:06.000000000 +0200
+++ ccache-3.1.12/debian/patches/series	2016-08-28 15:45:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
 debian_specific_usage_docs.patch
+fix_signal_handler_exit.patch

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Closing this due to lack of time.

-- Joel

On 30 June 2017 at 03:12, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org> (2017-06-29):
> Oh, right. I'm clearly confused on multiple levels here. (I erroneously
> referenced #829088 above instead of #835460, and I closed #835460
> prematurely. And I mixed up 3.1.12-1 with 3.1.12-2. This might or might not
> be related to my daughter being born two days after I got the approval...)

(Congratulations!)

> I made some quick attempts at understanding how to use sbuild for
> oldstable, but I failed, so unless somebody would like to help me build the
> package in a clean oldstable environment, I think that we can close this
> bug. I don't feel that I have time or patience enough to figure out why
> sbuild doesn't work for me. :-(

Feel free to ping debian-mentors@? I'm afraid I still have a bunch of pu
requests to look at, so I can't really offer any guidance here.


KiBi.


--- End Message ---
Reply to: