| Re: [proaudio] [2637] media-libs/libffado: Patch to prevent jackd --version being called. |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] [2637] media-libs/libffado: Patch to prevent jackd --version being called.
- From: Karl Lindén <spray.sucks@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:57:27 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BKiOVamtrPm1+yFXOeFUcrG/jHr1GrmBJ01hW5pf3Zk=; b=igrSxd9m4bvHuVacPNLZ0nblmjw5BZI9N8wpcRyhVCedO7VmWBIwatMRKNC1dhnI+3 ABFz2gwjiC6hMkNRNX/yJ2klM34iB0j9KnWahTC3wGv8+Co/uCJeJmiIG8QUnfUli35b OZ00Lm/Cp8GGuoXVbn/fQ84DpqcqBLU1uivPgkvjlmSLRGzfQxryDUprXK1pSKrQqxFX SR4eLGI1PaW/ZerGBzwoh51P1kiWtMNnioUOWAs0t4TGmBkY2Ml/pjjIoMqE7K2ZY0SU wkyeErIjfpNXK+JfMCVsztfDoPQKxB9hbtJ7cGiC7nWl3pRuYqAm08mMMWAg5V9iqv4q cRxg==
It seems like the build system calls jackd --version to get some
static build information.
I have submitted an updated patch to a fix. Please test it. Thank you
for reporting this issue.
Regards,
Karl
2013/4/2 Karl Lindén <spray.sucks@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I'm trying to reproduce it to see what should be fixed, but I'm not
> sure I will have time to commit anything until the evening/night
> (CET). I hope you don't mind waiting. Sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> Karl
>
> 2013/4/2 Sebastian Rose <s.rose@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> libffado-9999-r1, correct. build.log and sandbox.log are attached.
>>
>>
>> On 02/04/13 12:51, Karl Lindén wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume your trying to emerge version 9999-r1. Am I right?
>>>
>>> The new patch should only apply to the *-r1 ebuils, everything was
>>> deliberately kept unchanged in the latest commit. In which phase does
>>> the violation occur? Can you supply more information, like the build
>>> log?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> 2013/4/2 Sebastian Rose <s.rose@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>> The new libffado ebuild generates sandbox violations on my machine. It
>>>> didn't happen with -9999, something I'm missing?
>>>>
>>>> (null)*(null) --------- ACCESS VIOLATION SUMMARY ----------
>>>> (null)*(null) LOG FILE: "/var/log/sandbox/sandbox-12357.log"
>>>> (null)*(null)
>>>> VERSION 1.0
>>>> FORMAT: F - Function called
>>>> FORMAT: S - Access Status
>>>> FORMAT: P - Path as passed to function
>>>> FORMAT: A - Absolute Path (not canonical)
>>>> FORMAT: R - Canonical Path
>>>> FORMAT: C - Command Line
>>>>
>>>> F: open_wr
>>>> S: deny
>>>> P: /dev/snd/controlC0
>>>> A: /dev/snd/controlC0
>>>> R: /dev/snd/controlC0
>>>> C: jackd --version
>>>>
>>>> F: open_wr
>>>> S: deny
>>>> P: /dev/snd/controlC0
>>>> A: /dev/snd/controlC0
>>>> R: /dev/snd/controlC0
>>>> C: jackd --version
>>>> (null)*(null) -------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/04/13 14:39, subversion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Revision: 2637 Author: lilrc Date: 2013-04-01 14:39:47 +0200
>>>>> (Mon, 01 Apr 2013) Log Message: ----------- media-libs/libffado:
>>>>> Patch to prevent jackd --version being called. Move to EAPI 5 and
>>>>> base and python-single-r1 eclasses. Specify udev rules directory. Do
>>>>> python optimizations before merging.
>>
>>