bug#58: two configure patches for 1.1.0
wk at gnupg.org
Mon Feb 28 20:51:16 CET 2000
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Tim Mooney wrote:
> The reason that SHM_LOCK isn't being detected is that the AC_TRY_COMPILE is
> being called incorrectly -- its second argument should be a function *body*,
> GNUPG_CHECK_IPC test in aclocal.m4. This test probably wasn't working on
(aclocal.m4 is build by aclocal - the actual source is acinclude.m4)
> academic, since mlock on Tru64 systems is documented as failing unless
> you're the superuser (like HP-UX), but the additions I've made to the
Does that mean that it even does not work for setuid(root) processes?
> checks should make it more robust in general. Oddly enough once my patch
> is in place and mlock is found, the "mlock is broken" test outputs no,
Which is okay. This test is just for some HP/UX versions which simply
SEGV when you call mlock() without correct permissions.
> even though the man page for mlock clearly states that superuser priviledges
> are required to even call the functions (and I'm building as myself, not
So the SEGV is not a bug but a feature - strange API.
> The included patch is against 1.1.0.
1.1.x is the very,very unstable development branch of GnuPG as
clearly stated in the README file.
> this. You might want to add a "How to report bugs" section to the web
> pages and to the BUGS file in the distribution itself.
I'll try to apply your patch to 1.0
More information about the Gnupg-devel