December 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: To gnupg or not to gnupg ... (was Re: Assertion while pui-list-packages) 25 years, 4 months

SL Baur

N J Doye <nic(a)niss.ac.uk> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > Jan Vroonhof wrote on 3-December-1998: -> Still though I think switching to GnuPG should be delayed, its -> installed based is simply too small. It may be a choice of gnupg or nothing. I'm not signing anything with US exportable ``encryption'' and that may be the only kind of Zimmerman PGP we can get running on the box where signatures will be made. It is on US soil, but owned and operated by a Japanese company. > Both versions (0.4.1, 0.4.4) that I've downloaded fail to compile on > Solaris2.6/cc4.2. Why am I not surprised? > You'll need to get rid of the gcc options (-Wall) in configure and > somewhere else. > You'll need this in tiger.c: > typedef unsigned long long u64; > Then ld fails anyway. tiger.c utterly fails to compile on BSDI. Can you build if you do something like: make gnupg_extensions= Once I did manage to get it built (and after generating a secure key on a Linux box with /dev/random and importing it to the BSDI box) it spits this at me when stuff is signed: gpg (GnuPG) 0.4.4; Copyright (C) 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details. gpg: Warning: using insecure memory! Reading passphrase from file descriptor 0 You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: "XEmacs Distribution Builder (Key used for signing XEmacs distributions) <xemacs-dist(a)xemacs.org>" (1024-bit DSA key, ID DCF80B6B, created 1998-12-04) gpg: WARNING: using insecure random number generator!! The random number generator is only a kludge to let it compile - it is in no way a strong RNG! DON'T USE ANY DATA GENERATED BY THIS PROGRAM!! Um, what does having a weak RNG have to do with signing with a key generated with a strong RNG?

3 participants
2 comments

Re: Where is this message coming from and why? 25 years, 4 months

SL Baur

Matthew O Persico <mpersico(a)erols.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > Folks, if the great SLBaur (and I am not being facetious, I really mean > that) can't build this thing, we're in a whole heap-o-trouble. > :-) I've now built XEmacs 21 from scratch[1] on 4 different systems. We've only regressed back two years not three. It's not impossible to build from scratch, only lightly-documented and sometimes an adventure since it isn't being done very often. In other words, things aren't much different than they were in the days of XEmacs 19.14. That should change in the very near future. Footnotes: [1] Which in this case means no previous .elcs other than mule-base.

3 participants
2 comments

Re: XEmacs 21.2-b4: Bug in pui-list-packages 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Heiko Muenkel <muenkel(a)tnt.uni-hannover.de> writes: > The package contains no lisp files. May be this is the reason for the > bug. The sound packages should be rebuild to contain a _pkg.el and corresponding auto-autoload.el statement so they get added to the list of loaded packages. This still on the things-to-do-for-steve-in-his-copious-time-list. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: To gnupg or not to gnupg ... (was Re: Assertion while pui-list-packages) 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: > It may be a choice of gnupg or nothing. If it is going to be gnupg then I suggests switching the default setting of the package system to no check. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

XEmacs 21.2-b4: Bug in pui-list-packages 25 years, 4 months

Heiko Münkel

I've intstalled the package sounds-au 1.05, but pui-list-packages marks it as `not installed': - sounds-au 1.05 ----- XEmacs Sun sound files. The package contains no lisp files. May be this is the reason for the bug. Heiko

1 participants
0 comments

Re: warnings in 21.2 25 years, 4 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes: > These warnings got introduced recently: [...] Thanks for the report. Fix in a jiffie. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- By any chance, have you seen a summoned 9th order fire elemental wandering around? No? Oh.. Tell me if you do.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: What to build? 25 years, 4 months

Raymond Toy

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: sb> Christian Nybø <s911254(a)stud.nhh.no> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: >> I download xemacs sources thru CVS, and made a successful build of >> 21.0 "Pyrenean-pre9" XEmacs Lucid on mips-sgi-irix6.5 with gcc. sb> "Pyrenean-pre9" is the latest and greatest XEmacs 21.0. If you are sb> choosing one tree to test, that is the one. Is it possible to get this without using CVS? Like ftp'ing a tarball? I'm behind a firewall so cvs access is out. Ray

1 participants
0 comments

Re: To gnupg or not to gnupg ... (was Re: Assertion while pui-list-packages) 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Jason R Mastaler <jason(a)4b.org> writes: > GnuPG compiles and runs on many more systems, but due to the lack of > a good random number source, it should not be used on these > systems. Of course for the purpose of verification having a bad random number source is irrelevant. Still though I think switching to GnuPG should be delayed, its installed based is simply too small. Jan

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Where is this message coming from and why? 25 years, 4 months

Carsten Leonhardt

>>>>> Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > "Matthew O. Persico" <mpersico(a)erols.com> writes: >> Hmm. I'm surprised. I ALWAYS build from scratch, then re-apply my >> local stuff. I would have thought others would do the same. Yup. I do the same. Only not as often as before packaging came. The build process needs more attention now. Hurdles are: 1. To build the Mule-version (as I always do), I need to have mule-base already in the package-path. I wish we could get rid of any build-time dependency on external packages. 2. When building the packages, the non-latin-1 info files won't get built unless one has the texinfo package already installed. Wouldn't it be possible to use the texinfo package that is being built in the same build-process? > Are you positive? Why do you remove all your `.elc' files every > time, then? Well, speaking for me, I start with a completely fresh source, copied over from where I keep my cvs-checkouts. I never build directly in there, maybe from fear that I would fuck something up in there, and would have to refetch the whole thing (which costs time and money, here in Europe). Another reason is that there can't be interference from old stuff into the new build. leo

1 participants
0 comments

warnings in 21.2 25 years, 4 months

Andy Piper

These warnings got introduced recently: gcc -c -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-switch -Demacs -I. -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I/usr/local/includ e -Wno-sign-compare -fno-caller-saves -I/usr/X11R6.3/include fns.c fns.c: In function `Fbase64_encode_region': fns.c:3804: warning: `speccount' might be used uninitialized in this function fns.c: In function `Fbase64_encode_string': fns.c:3849: warning: `speccount' might be used uninitialized in this function fns.c: In function `Fbase64_decode_region': fns.c:3880: warning: `speccount' might be used uninitialized in this function fns.c: In function `Fbase64_decode_string': fns.c:3925: warning: `speccount' might be used uninitialized in this function andy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- " .sigs are like your face - rarely seen by you and uglier than you think" Dr Andy Piper, Technical Architect, Parallax Solutions Ltd mail: andyp(a)parallax.co.uk web: www.parallax.co.uk/~andyp

1 participants
0 comments

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta December 1998