Re: pkg/47322 (pkgsrc/print/cups update for LIBS_SSP to include -libssp for solaris)

[David Holland <dholland-pbugs%netbsd.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/47322; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: David Holland <dholland-pbugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/47322 (pkgsrc/print/cups update for LIBS_SSP to include
 -libssp for solaris)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 18:36:14 +0000

 not sent to gnats
 
    --------
 
 From: Richard PALO <richard.palo%free.fr@localhost>
 To: sbd%NetBSD.org@localhost, pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, 
richard.palo%baou.fr@localhost
 Subject: Re: pkg/47322 (pkgsrc/print/cups update for LIBS_SSP to include
        -libssp for solaris)
 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:10:41 +0200
 
 Le 08/10/13 17:05, Richard PALO a ?crit :
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/47322; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 >   No response for quite awhile, so I'll reiterate with an extract of the
 >   link provided:
 >   > But, if GCC decides to use TLS canary for -fstack-protector,
 >   > then it ought to avoid -lssp_nonshared -lssp, while if
 >   > it decides not to use them, then it should force -lssp_nonshared -lssp
 >   > (as glibc doesn't provide __stack_chk_guard on the architectures
 >   > that provide TLS canary).
 > 
 >   In absence of any pertinent objections, I'll push this with the builtin
 >   mit-krb5 gssapi fixes affecting cups this weekend or so.
 > 
 >   BTW - I don't believe suppressing the 'LDFLAGS+= -lssp_nonshared' in
 >   favour of 'CFLAGS+= -fno-stack-protector' is necessarily a great
 >   alternative... That is, unless there are some great arguments for this
 >   approach.
 > 
 > 
 As this was pushed this morning, the problem report can probably be closed.