Your message dated Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:25:11 +0200 with message-id <20150813102511.GA5637@crossbow> and subject line Re: apt uses wrong prototype for getsockopt has caused the Debian Bug report #323716, regarding apt uses wrong prototype for getsockopt 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.) -- 323716: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=323716 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: apt uses wrong prototype for getsockopt
- From: Daniel Macks <dmacks@netspace.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:37:36 -0400
- Message-id: <20050818043736.GA7844@happy.netspace.org>
Package: apt Version: 0.5.4 (also present in 0.6.40.1) In methods/connect.cc, getsockopt() is used as: unsigned int Err; unsigned int Len = sizeof(Err); if (getsockopt(Fd,SOL_SOCKET,SO_ERROR,&Err,&Len) != 0) return _error->Errno("getsockopt",_("Failed")); and similarly in methods/ftp.cc. That fifth parameter type is functionally correct on some platforms, but is not the documented prototype on many and is not even functionally equivalent on some. The alternative standard apears to be: int getsockopt(int s, int level, int optname, void *optval, socklen_t *optlen); I get compiler warnings on my darwin/ppc machines where socklen_t is an int, or a size_t especially on 64-bit machines where size_t is larger than an int. There is already a configure test for the presence of a socklen_t type; can one assume that the fifth parameter to getsockopt should always be socklen_t if that type exists? Alternativelly, I've seen some programs do a configure test specifically to determine the fifth argument of getsockopt. Any thoughts on improving the platform portability here? dan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 323716-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: apt uses wrong prototype for getsockopt
- From: David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:25:11 +0200
- Message-id: <20150813102511.GA5637@crossbow>
- In-reply-to: <20050818043736.GA7844@happy.netspace.org>
- References: <20050818043736.GA7844@happy.netspace.org>
Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:37:36AM -0400, Daniel Macks wrote: > specifically to determine the fifth argument of getsockopt. Any > thoughts on improving the platform portability here? Seems like nobody had any thought on portability in 10 years… so lets put my thoughts here: We are happy to apply reasonable patches for plattforms not supported by Debian, but please understand that we can't go on a scavanger hunt for all the things we could possibly change to support everything under the sun on our own for the lack of manpower and time. I am hence closing this bugreport as nobody stepped up to do it for 10 years, I doubt someone will in the next 10 years and stumble over this bug… better if a new bug is opened in the event of a porter being suddently interested in it! Note that Debian has (multiple) powerpc ports, so the issue you describe here seems to be resolved some way in the meantime anyhow?! Best regards David KalnischkiesAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---