[OE-core] [PATCH] bzip2: fix bunzip2 -qt returns 0 for corrupt archives

[Robert Yang]

On 10/12/2015 08:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 05:35 -0400, wenzong.fan at windriver.com wrote:
>> From: Wenzong Fan <wenzong.fan at windriver.com>
>>
>> "bzip2 -t FILE" returns 2 if FILE exists, but is not a valid bzip2 file.
>> "bzip2 -qt FILE" returns 0 when this happens, although it does print out
>> an error message as is does so.
>>
>> This has been fix by Debian, just port changes from Debian patch file
>> "20-legacy.patch":
>>
>> * Fixed "bunzip2 -qt returns 0 for corrupt archives" (Closes: #279025).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wenzong Fan <wenzong.fan at windriver.com>
>> ---
>>   ...bunzip2-qt-returns-0-for-corrupt-archives.patch | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb         |  1 +
>>   2 files changed, 50 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2-1.0.6/fix-bunzip2-qt-returns-0-for-corrupt-archives.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2-1.0.6/fix-bunzip2-qt-returns-0-for-corrupt-archives.patch b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2-1.0.6/fix-bunzip2-qt-returns-0-for-corrupt-archives.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..63d705d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2-1.0.6/fix-bunzip2-qt-returns-0-for-corrupt-archives.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
>> +From 8068659388127e8e63f2d2297ba2348c72b20705 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> +From: Wenzong Fan <wenzong.fan at windriver.com>
>> +Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:19:51 -0400
>> +Subject: [PATCH] bzip2: fix bunzip2 -qt returns 0 for corrupt archives
>> +
>> +"bzip2 -t FILE" returns 2 if FILE exists, but is not a valid bzip2 file.
>> +"bzip2 -qt FILE" returns 0 when this happens, although it does print out
>> +an error message as is does so.
>> +
>> +This has been fix by Debian, just port changes from Debian patch file
>> +"20-legacy.patch":
>> +
>> +* Fixed "bunzip2 -qt returns 0 for corrupt archives" (Closes: #279025).
>> +
>> +Upstream-Status: Backport [Debian]
>> +
>
> What is the upstream position on this issue? That they won't fix it? I'm
> not sure Backport is right for a debian patch since debian is not the
> bzip2 upstream.

I wrongly thought that it was right, and we did have several "Backport [Debian]"
in oe-core/meta, should it be a Pending or Pending [Debian], please ?

// Robert

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>