[Pkg-shadow-devel] Re: (forw) Bug#280212: lastlog: fails when high UIDs are present

[Steve Langasek]

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:10:30AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Thanks for report this, Steve. I forward this to Tomasz as upstream
> for having his advice on the issue.

> Steve, as release manager, you're aware of the situation of shadow
> currently and the fact that I'm trying to build a maintenance team for
> post-sarge maintenance of the package. In the meantime, I'm doing my
> best (or less worse) for properly maintaining it in good shape.

> As you didn't tag this bug report release critical, I guess you don't
> consider it worth being fixed in sarge. Am I right?

I don't consider it release-critical; I do think it's the kind of bug that
is worth fixing before sarge's release if someone is up to the challenge.
The main concern I have is that someone is attentive to the package to
notice any regressions introduced by the change; the actual code to be
changed is fairly trivial.

> BTW, even if I know you're already wearing too much hats, you're
> obviously welcome for joining the team..:-)

And you're welcome to help with Samba package maintenance ;-)

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


> ----- Forwarded message from Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> -----
>=20
> Subject: Bug#280212: lastlog: fails when high UIDs are present
> Reply-To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 280212@bugs.debian.org
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:19:44 -0800
> From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
> To: 280212@bugs.debian.org
>=20
> Attention was drawn to this bug on IRC today.  Since using a 32-bit index
> for a file that has more than one byte of data per entry makes it very
> possible to have files that exceed a 32-bit file size limit, I agree that
> this is a bug and should be fixed.
>=20
> Two caveats, however:
>=20
> - it is not safe to use the 64-bit flags in a program if it also exchanges
>   file-related structs with a library that does not have 64-bit support
>   enabled (I don't think this is a problem here)
> - the 64-bit flags don't necessarily have the expected effect on platforms
>   that are natively 64-bit -- c.f. bug #280213 (hmm, what a coincidental =
bug
>   #) on exim.  The safe way to do this seems to be to use the output of
>   "getconf LFS_CFLAGS".
>=20
> Cheers,
> --=20
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>=20
> --=20
>=20
>=20

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFB3OsWKN6ufymYLloRAndRAJixS1NJDLWF8jykTRDM5VvQg2uTAJ9HBVox
RYxhvQnKgETAqNZrAx4nEA==
=vwnu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv--