Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2008-11-06 dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> reassign 503833 libtasn1-3
>> severity 503833 important
>> thanks
>
>> Upstream has developed a patch:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnutls-devel/2008-11/msg00000.html
>
>> If I apply this to libtasn1-3 it fixes the problem for me.
>> However, I had set the nocheck DEB_BUILD_OPTION because it causes
>> libtasn1-3 to fail at least one build-time test.
>
>> It would be nice to get a fix for this into lenny as it will fix a
>> regression from etch's subversion.
>
> Hello,
>
> I have just uploaded a fixed version to experimental. I am reluctant
> to go immediately to unstable since it requires a shlibs bump due to
> an added function.
Yes, this bug cannot be fixed easily since it requires new
functionality.
> I am not also not sure about this change:
>
> ----------------------
> --- a/lib/libtasn1.h
> +++ b/lib/libtasn1.h
> @@ -105,11 +105,14 @@ extern "C"
> /* that represent an ASN.1 DEFINITION. */
> /******************************************************/
>
> +#define SMALL_VALUE_SIZE 16
> +
> struct node_asn_struct
> {
> char *name; /* Node name */
> unsigned int type; /* Node type */
> unsigned char *value; /* Node value */
> + unsigned char small_value[SMALL_VALUE_SIZE]; /* if value is less than
> that store it here */
> int value_len;
> struct node_asn_struct *down; /* Pointer to the son node */
> struct node_asn_struct *right; /* Pointer to the brother node */
> struct node_asn_struct *left; /* Pointer to the next list element
> */
> };
>
> typedef struct node_asn_struct node_asn;
>
> typedef node_asn *ASN1_TYPE;
> ----------------------
>
> Although the docs only talk about using the ASN1_TYPE pointer the
> struct definition still is in the public interface. Doesn't this break
> the ABI? - I am really not sure, to tired.
Yup, that part is bad. I've moved the entire node_asn_struct from
libtasn1.h in git master, since it was never intended to be exported.
This breaks the API though.
I think the current situation is that this problem hasn't been fully
finalized upstream, so it seems premature for anything but experimental
to me.
/Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
