From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Failure to build clamav due to rust reversion
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:37:25 +0200
Message-ID: <074bd2c0-db51-4ea9-99d7-8b7db5580ae7@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <4294a345-52f8-460e-b4af-8abdb7bb1652@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8527862379015592766=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============8527862379015592766==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 29.08.2024 23:17, Adolf Belka wrote:
> Hi Matthias,

Hi Adolf,

> On 29/08/2024 19:18, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> On 29.08.2024 15:24, Adolf Belka wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>>> On 29/08/2024 15:04, Adolf Belka wrote:
>>>> Hi Michael & Matthias,
>>>>
>>>> I just re-ran my build after the removal of the coreutils patch.
>>>>
>>>> The build went past coreutils with no problem. However it has then faile=
d at clamav (1.4.0) with the message

>>>> ...

[some stuff shortened]

>>> Looking through clamav, I can't find a way to easily tell clamav to use t=
he rust-home version that is in IPFire. Hopefully Matthias with his knowledge=
 of building clamav with rust can find a way.
>>=20
>> Sorry Adolf, but I fear, I'm not *that* experienced... ;-)
>=20
> I had a look through and found the rust source from 1.65.0 and I created a =
patch to change the home directory contents in the clamav source tarball to t=
he version of home-0.5.3 instead of 0.5.5 which requires a min rust of 0.70.1=
 or similar.

First attempt...

> That resulted in the next fail where the rust-which package was asking for =
a minimum home version of 0.5.5

Next failure...

> So then I created another patch to modify the rust-which version requiremen=
t for home to 0.5.3

Oh my...

> Then the build failed again with a message that home has to be > 0.5.3 and =
that is locked to version 0.5.9 but I can't find where that requirement is sp=
ecified and I have the feeling this will become like going down the rabbit ho=
le in Alice in Wonderland, so I am giving up at this point.

Could that be 'Cargo.lock' (line 465ff) or 'Cargo.toml' (line 12ff)?

But: WOW! You have my fullest sympathy and respect! But this was what I
expected - and I still think its not worth it, the efforts and work are
too extensive.

> There were no CVE fixes in clamav-1.4.0 so I think we can just wait for rus=
t to be updated.

FULL ACK!

Best
Matthias

> Regards,
>=20
> Adolf.
>=20
>>=20
>> I wouldn't want to temper with this and revert 'clamav', too.
>>=20
>> Best
>> Matthias
>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Adolf.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Adolf.
>>>>
>>=20


--===============8527862379015592766==--