[oe] [ LIN8-299 ] snort: fix m4 causes out of memory during configure
Zhiquan Li
zhiquan.li at windriver.com
Fri Oct 23 10:07:34 UTC 2015
Summary: snort: fix m4 causes out of memory during configure
Tech Review: Jie Huang
Gatekeeper: Liezhi Yang
Lockdown Approval (if needed):
Branch Tag: wr-8.0-20151008
IP Statement (form link or license statement, usually automated):
Crypto URL(s) (if needed): see http://wiki.wrs.com/PBUeng/LinuxProductDivisionExportProcess
Parent Template (where applicable):
-------------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
------------------- -----------
docs/tech-pubs n
tests n
build system y
host dependencies n
RPM/packaging n
toolchain n
kernel code n
user code n
configuration files n
target configuration n
Other n
Applicable to Yocto/upstream n
New Kernel Warnings n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
commit 04542e758db84f4d20d9df09b204c6164b05f654
Author: Zhiquan Li <zhiquan.li at windriver.com>
Date: Thu Oct 22 13:28:47 2015 +0800
snort: fix m4 causes out of memory during configure
Issue: LIN8-299
There is an incorrect m4_define() in configure.in which will result in an
infinite recursion, and it doesn't make sense, since snort 2.9.7 it has been
commented out. We follow this solution to fix it.
Upstream-Status: Backport
(LOCAL REV: NOT UPSTREAM) -- Sent to oe-devel on 20151023
Signed-off-by: Zhiquan Li <zhiquan.li at windriver.com>
Added Files:
------------
.../snort/snort/m4-oom-during-configure.patch | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
Removed Files:
--------------
None.
Remaining Changes (diffstat):
-----------------------------
.../recipes-connectivity/snort/snort_2.9.6.0.bb | 16 +++-------------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Testing Applicable to:
----------------------
common_pc_64 standard glibc_std
Testing Commands:
-----------------
1 configure --enable-board=intel-x86-64 --enable-kernel=standard --enable-rootfs=glibc-std
2 make snort
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
The packages of snort can be created successfully.
Conditions of submission:
-------------------------
N/A
Arch built boot boardname
-------------------------------------
MIPS n n
MIPS64 n n
MIPS64n32 n n
ARM32 n n
ARM64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y n
PPC n n
PPC64 n n
SPARC64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review/gatekeep because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You've not properly listed things in the proper sections from
the perspective of the SCM for new, removed, and changed files
___ You have failed to nominate a proper person for gatekeep or review.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ Your patches have timestamps and/or index lines
___ You have failed to put in a proper CQID into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put internal data like CQID commits into
customer visible files (things shipped directly as patches etc).
___ Your "Signed-off-by:" is either missing or invalid
___ You have not built for enough appropriate architecture families,
and/or you've chosen an arch family that is guaranteed to succeed.
___ You've included large amounts of useless and irrelevant diffstat
information.
___ You've included binary files in your RR which appear as a large
number of lines of useless "uuencode" information.
___ You have changed a host tool and not tested on enough supported hosts.
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have carried forward some ancient/meaningless internal WRS CVS
tags (i.e. $Id$) in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have not clearly specified the origin of some/all of your added
content (i.e. patches from a mailing list, a git tree, done internally?)
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have dropped patches that were used on the old pkg version
without clearly justifying why they are no longer needed.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have added a new package, but not indicated that the package
addition matches the Makefile template specified by the Userspace group
___ New Kernel Warnings were created and you did not validate that there
are no corresponding functional problems.
-----------
Original of this form hosted at:
http://git.wrs.com/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/bin/tree/etc/review.txt
From: Zhiquan Li <zhiquan.li at windriver.com>
Subject:
In-Reply-To:
More information about the Openembedded-devel
mailing list