net-analyzer/traceroute: append lfs flags #34366
Conversation
Pull Request assignmentSubmitter: @taoyl-g net-analyzer/traceroute: @gentoo/netmon Linked bugsBugs linked: 471102 In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide |
gentoo-bot
added
assigned
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2023-12-19 04:53 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
| @@ -16,6 +16,10 @@ IUSE="static" | |||
|
|
|||
| RDEPEND="!net-misc/iputils[traceroute6(-)]" | |||
|
|
|||
| src_configure() { | |||
| append-lfs-flags | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
upstream has a bug tracker. please file a bug with them and link that here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done.
Btw, I've not fully understood why LFS is relevant with this package - diffing 2.1.0 and 2.1.3 I only see some additional usage of poll(). Is the LFS flags going to affect signature of poll()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CrOS has exceptions in place for specific versions to force people to clean things up the next time the package is upgraded
taoyl-g
force-pushed
the
dev/traceroute-lfs
branch
from
b68fe75
to
ee6764d
Compare
This change adds large file support for traceroute 2.1.3. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/471102 Signed-off-by: Taoyu Li <taoyl@chromium.org>
taoyl-g
force-pushed
the
dev/traceroute-lfs
branch
from
ee6764d
to
25b9af4
Compare
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2024-01-11 03:54 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
This change adds large file support for traceroute 2.1.3.
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/471102