Conversation
LeSuisse
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question for reviewers: is the
cygwinpatch,preConfigure = lib.optionalString stdenv.isCygwin '' sed -i gnu/fpending.h -e 's,include <stdio_ext.h>,,' '';still necessary? I don't see a
gnu/fpending.hfile in the tarball.
Are you sure? I'm seeing the file and patched content is present in the file in the tarball.
Changelog: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/cpio.git/tree/NEWS#n7 Includes fix for CVE-2021-38185, https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/cpio.git/commit/?id=dd96882877721703e19272fe25034560b794061b For me, I'm interested in the `--reproducible` fix for hard link counts being dependent on the underlying filesystem.
You're right, I was looking in the source tarball, not the release tarball. |
risicle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Built rpm on nixos x86_64, git.tests.withInstallCheck on macos 10.15 & nixos x86_64. Built pkgsStatic variant, pkgsMusl variant, pkgsCross.aarch64-multiplatform variant. Builds on aarch64-linux.
Description of changes
Changelog: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/cpio.git/tree/NEWS
Personally, I'm interested in the hard link fix to
--reproducible.Question for reviewers: is the
cygwinpatch,still necessary? I don't see a
gnu/fpending.hfile in the tarball.Things done
sandbox = trueset innix.conf? (See Nix manual)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)