* Jan Klemkow <[email protected]> [2014-06-02 19:56]: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:50:19AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Jan Klemkow <[email protected]> [2014-06-01 23:38]: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 09:51:24PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > On 2014/05/30 22:43, Jan Klemkow wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:26:43PM +0200, Jan Klemkow wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:49:55PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > > > > * Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> [2014-05-28 12:31]: > > > > > > > > the old port also had this...is this or something like it still > > > > > > > > needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # datasize limit in 'run' files is too low for ld.so > > > > > > > > # to be able to pull in libc > > > > > > > > LDFLAGS+= -static > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is everything but smart, it makes MUCH more sense to > > > > > > > increase the > > > > > > > datasize limits (the softlimit calls) in the run scripts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Henning is right. It is stupid to compile this port static cause > > > > > > of the > > > > > > datasize limit. So I removed it from the port. > > > > > > > > If something is still needed for this, then it probably needs some > > > > kind of instructions somewhere... > > > > > > I talked with Henning about the reason of that static compiling hack. > > > As I understand him, there are some scripts from djb which sets the > > > datasize limit to a low value and that causes some crashes. So I add > > > an install notice to the port: > > > > > > Please notice, there may be some scripts that manipulate the datasize > > > limit of tcpclient/tcpserver which may cause a process termination. > > > For more information look at login.conf(5). > > > > not really. > > > > a typical daemontools-style run script looks like this: > > > > #!/bin/sh > > exec 2>&1 > > exec envuidgid tinydns envdir ./env softlimit -d30000 /usr/local/bin/tinydns > > > > since it's djb and just HAS to be different to be different... the > > softlimit invocation is the culprit, that number there needs > > adjustment, the defaults from more than a decade ago (when no > > randomization, eating a little virtual mem, took place) just don't cut > > it any more. > > What should I do with this port now? > Adding this message, no message, or an other message?
IMO: tweak the message - explicit mention of softlimit, and I think the pointer to login.conf is misleading.
