Bug 267702 - [NEW PORT] editors/xemacs-devel Revival of the XEmacs port
Summary: [NEW PORT] editors/xemacs-devel Revival of the XEmacs port
Status: Open
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Many People
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2022-11-10 23:36 UTC by Jaakko Salomaa
Modified: 2023-11-07 00:39 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Port content (620.96 KB, application/x-shellscript)
2022-11-10 23:36 UTC, Jaakko Salomaa
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jaakko Salomaa 2022-11-10 23:36:50 UTC
Created attachment 238007 [details]
Port content

I'm intent on reviving the XEmacs port. This port is built from the latest VCS sources at https://foss.heptapod.net/xemacs/xemacs and the extension packages under https://foss.heptapod.net/xemacs ; I'm personally a XEmacs developer, and have been developing XEmacs to make it work under modern BSD systems. See https://foss.heptapod.net/xemacs/xemacs/-/commit/9526b810710ae79f344c1b97a16ae4b3a490a449 , for example, for my efforts to remove brk(2) dependency.

The reason PORTEPOCH is defined in the Makefile is that otherwise the build will fail on a 

===>  xemacs-devel-21.5.b34.20221108 has known vulnerabilities:
xemacs-devel-21.5.b34.20221108 is vulnerable:
  emacs -- movemail format string vulnerability
  CVE: CVE-2005-0100
  WWW: https://vuxml.FreeBSD.org/freebsd/3e3c860d-7dae-11d9-a9e7-0001020eed82.html
Comment 1 Robert Clausecker freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-08 14:52:10 UTC
Thank you for your submission.  I apologise for the slow processing.
This looks like it was quite the effort to write and it's a shame that it
kind of got lost on our bug tracker.

Here are some remarks:

 - I understand that you bumped the portepoch due to the vulnerability.
   Is the port you submitted still affected by CVE-2005-0100?
 - What is the purpose of the ${:U ... :M*} construction?  I don't see
   what it does.  You should be able to just remove this construct.
 - it's okay if portlint gives bogus warnings, no need to add comments to
   work around these
 - I'll remove the "Created by" line as we have abolished these a while ago
 - a test build complains that you need to use USES=ldap instead of
   USE_OPENLDAB
 - similarly, we have revamped the USE_GITLAB infrastructure.  It now supports
   proper tag names with GL_TAGNAME
 - the port no longer fetches due to checksum errors.  This could be related
   to said revamping.  Please recompute the checksums, update to GL_TAGNAME,
   possibly replace commit hashes with actual tags and resubmit.  I have temporarily
   worked around this issue by regenerating the hashes myself.

During a build test, I noticed that one of your configure tests seems to be defective (on arm64 FreeBSD 13.2):

checking for makeinfo >= 4.12... test: : bad number
test: : bad number
no
configure: WARNING: Found Makeinfo .  4.12 or later required.

The build then predictably fails in the install stage:

install: *.info*: No such file or directory
chmod: /usr/home/ports/main.ports/editors/xemacs-devel/work-full/stage/usr/local/share/info/xemacs/*.info*: No such file or directory
gmake[2]: *** [Makefile:160: install-arch-indep] Error 1
gmake[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/home/ports/main.ports/editors/xemacs-devel/work-full/xemacs-a537ee11f976a6d2f22f7c8b7d2b3acef7fcc69e'


Please address these issues and resubmit the patch.  I promise it'll go faster this time.
Comment 2 Robert Clausecker freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-11-07 00:39:47 UTC
No response, returning to pool.