ariadne
/
ariadne.space
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

update with latest u-config status of things
ci/woodpecker/push/woodpecker Pipeline was successful Details

main
Ariadne Conill 2023-01-28 04:17:28 -08:00
parent e5e5443fcc
commit 44cba32f7c
1 changed files with 19 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
content/blog/pkgconf-and-cve-2023-24056.md
View File

@ -109,11 +109,11 @@ the potential to someday be a replacement to pkgconf. I am open to talking abou
such a deprecation, even.
However, after the initial blogpost (which contained disinformation about both
freedesktop pkg-config *and* pkgconf), there is additional disinformation from
freedesktop pkg-config *and* pkgconf), there was additional disinformation from
another person who is enthusiastic about the u-config project. Notably, he
submitted a patch, which amongst other things, claims that `pkgconf` does not
consider `/usr/include` to be a system include path. When configured correctly,
it definitely does. For example, on Alpine Linux:
submitted a patch, which amongst other things, could be misinterpreted by readers
to conclude that `pkgconf` does not consider `/usr/include` as a system include
path. When configured correctly, it definitely does. For example, on Alpine Linux:
pestilence:~$ pkgconf --dump-personality
Triplet: default
@ -127,6 +127,21 @@ if it were true.
[uc-disinfo]: https://github.com/skeeto/u-config/commit/c069c94d77e1381cf7d67b8283601c5e79a91534#diff-c1f8e1880984a1a513fbb1c1191ea62910de9f1656c89f30d41609fb7317080bR1563
*Update (28 January 2023):* Since the initial publication of this blog, the comment
introduced in the above patch has been corrected to reflect a specific edge case
relating to `-I/usr/include` verses `-I /usr/include`. I believe the discrepancy
in the handling of both fragments to be a bug, one which was not reported to me,
but rather discussed only in the source code comment. The contributor of the patch
in question to u-config, in particular, has pointed the fact that they later changed
the source code comment to clarify the issue, as part of an attempt to deflect from
the point of this blog: discussing how the u-config author and contributors have
chosen to engage in bad faith with other pkg-config implementations (especially
pkgconf) from the beginning of their project. While I plan to fix the non-reported
discrepancy in the next pkgconf release, I will note that the u-config authors have
so far [chosen to not handle this edge case][uc-comment-2].
[uc-comment-2]: https://github.com/skeeto/u-config/blob/7b5d32f/u-config.c#L1679-L1686
## `pkg-config` implementations do specific things for a reason
In the UNIX environment, the behavior of the system toolchain is static and