Re: Suggest to upgrade some software in base

On 06/27/04 12:02, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 04:54:08PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
>> I digged through our base system and looked for versions of
>> contributed soft. I found these program which could (and I think
>> should) be easily and painlessly upgraded (before 5.3 as 5-STABLE)
>> because they are outdated etc... these are:
>>
>> file - 3.41 ->  4.09
>> Painless upgrade and the benefit is much newer magic file
>> ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/
> 
> Only semi-painless.  The code and how it is built has changed around a
> lot, else I would have upgraded it by now.  That said, in progress; but
> lower priority than my toolchain work.
> 
> And why does this have to happen before 5-STABLE?  I can certainly MFC
> something like this.

Don't import until FILE 4.10 is released.  I've submitted a patch to 
Christos Zoulas for inclusion in 4.10 that *greatly* increases the 
accuracy of FILE for FreeBSD.  As soon as I see FILE 4.10 released (with 
my patch), I'll be pleading for an import...

Included in the patch is correct detection of 4.10+ (4.10 -> 
__FreeBSD_version = 491000) and printing of the __FreeBSD_version value 
for executable built on a development branch.

Output of the patch for a wide range of test cases:
http://www.noacks.org/freebsd/output.txt

The submitted patch:
http://www.noacks.org/freebsd/readelf.c.diff

If you want to run this now (a patch against the version in tree):
http://www.noacks.org/freebsd/readelf.c.diff-freebsd

Note that the -freebsd version of the patch is functionally the same as 
the submitted patch but does not contain the updated comments.

Jon