Re: [Ltib] upgrading to a newer package -- did i do this correctly?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Stuart Hughes wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 19:02 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   i just want to verify that i followed the correct steps to add a
> > newer package to ltib.
> >
> >   when it became obvious that i needed a newer version of dropbear,
> > here's what i did:
> >
> >   * edited the file dist/lfs-5.1/dropbear/dropbear.spec to bump the
> >     version from 0.45 to 0.52, and removed the two references to
> >     the patch (since it *appears* that version 0.52 doesn't need
> >     patching, but we'll find out soon enough if that's true)
>
> Correct.

  the new dropbear seems to be working just fine, having been
shoehorned into the aged 6.4.1 ltib being used where i am.  having
upgraded a number of OpenWRT packages over the years, i normally take
greater care in figuring out what patches have to be carried forward
to a newer version, but dropbear-0.45 had only the one patch:

--- dropbear-0.45/scp.c 2005-03-07 04:27:02.000000000 +0000
+++ dropbear-0.45.modified/scp.c        2005-06-16 11:20:40.000000000 +0100
@@ -249,9 +249,11 @@

        args.list = NULL;
        addargs(&args, "ssh");          /* overwritten with ssh_program */
+#ifndef DROPBEAR_CLIENT
        addargs(&args, "-x");
        addargs(&args, "-oForwardAgent no");
        addargs(&args, "-oClearAllForwardings yes");
+#endif

        fflag = tflag = 0;
        while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "dfl:prtvBCc:i:P:q1246S:o:F:"))!= -1)

which didn't appear to be valid anymore, the new dropbear worked out
of the box, and "scp" seemed to scp properly so i just abandoned that
patch.  if anyone knows whether that patch should still be applied
somehow, now would be a good time to mention it.  :-)

> >
> >   * downloaded dropbear-0.52.tar.gz into /opt/ltib/pkgs since it
> >     wouldn't be available from the GPP
> >
> Correct

  and if/when dropbear-0.52 gets added to the LTIB GPP officially,
this step will of course become unnecessary.

> >   * left .ltibrc alone
> >
> > optionally, once i verify that 0.52 works, i guess i could remove
> > the 0.45 tarball and the patch from /opt/ltib/pkgs.
>
> Usually it's best to leave unless you're short of space is if you
> share the machine, they can still get at the older version (if they
> had an older LTIB, or just wanted it).

  i'm normally of two minds on that.  if i'm responsible for other
folks all building LTIB images, i might remove an older version of a
package just to *force* everyone to upgrade, since i'd rather not
support two different version of the same software.  you're correct,
of course, in that it makes no real difference to leave the old
tarball where it is.

> >   does all of that sound about right?  the build seems to be
> > progressing nicely.
>
> Yes that's it.
>
> Once you've tested it, can you send a patch to the list and I'll
> commit the change to CVS, I'll also upload the pristine tarball to
> the GPP.

 would that be a simple diff of the spec file?  i can do that shortly.

> If you think you'll make regular contributions, I can give you CVS
> write access and a password for the GPP upload.

  sure, i'll probably be looking at upgrading a number of other
packages.  i'll try not to break anything.  :-)

rday

p.s.  i actually posted the above patch to the dropbear mailing list,
asking whether it was still relevant for 0.52.  i'll let you know but,
for now, i'm going to drop it.
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.

http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================