Skip to contentSkip to conversation

stunnel: bump to version 5.16

PATCH Superseded Gustavo Zacarias 2 participants 3 messages Apr 23, 2015

v1 of 2 Superseded Latest is v2 →

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 stunnel: bump to version 5.16

---
 package/stunnel/stunnel.hash | 4 ++--
 package/stunnel/stunnel.mk   | 3 ++-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
package/stunnel/stunnel.hash +2 -2
index 7f28905..8545341 100644
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-# From http://www.stunnel.org/pipermail/stunnel-announce/2015-January/000090.html
-sha256	87b34a74061861d1edd2ab238c73eb989b3d0a17e44574b7b6ead1a16aae38c8	stunnel-5.09.tar.gz
+# From https://www.stunnel.org/pipermail/stunnel-announce/2015-April/000098.html
+sha256	b6b7e93fb2626eaabae1c8474e1dfa23962cfde8fa35c8602289fcaa4f53608d	stunnel-5.16.tar.gz
package/stunnel/stunnel.mk +2 -1
index f7099e8..d8a2d20 100644
@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-STUNNEL_VERSION = 5.09
+STUNNEL_VERSION = 5.16
 STUNNEL_SITE = http://www.usenix.org.uk/mirrors/stunnel/archive/5.x
 STUNNEL_DEPENDENCIES = openssl
 STUNNEL_CONF_OPTS = --with-ssl=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr --with-threads=fork \
 	--disable-libwrap
+STUNNEL_CONF_ENV = ax_cv_check_cflags___fstack_protector=no
 STUNNEL_LICENSE = GPLv2+
 STUNNEL_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING COPYRIGHT.GPL
 
Signature · 1 line
2.0.5
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 stunnel: bump to version 5.16

Dear Gustavo Zacarias,

Quoted 1 line · Gustavo Zacarias

+STUNNEL_CONF_ENV = ax_cv_check_cflags___fstack_protector=no

Shouldn't this be:

STUNNEL_CONF_ENV = \
	ax_cv_check_cflags___fstack_protector=$(if $(BR2_ENABLE_SSP),yes,no)

?

Thomas

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 stunnel: bump to version 5.16

Quoted 8 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Quoted 1 line

+STUNNEL_CONF_ENV = ax_cv_check_cflags___fstack_protector=no

Shouldn't this be:

STUNNEL_CONF_ENV = \
	ax_cv_check_cflags___fstack_protector=$(if $(BR2_ENABLE_SSP),yes,no)

?

Oi, yes.
The problem is that the detection is too optimistic, it assumes it's ok under most circumstances, and breaks in a non-trivial way. Sent V2.
Regards.