Unable to use the Durex SSL Patch on Debian Squeeze 64bit

hypnotoad · Post by **hypnotoad** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:33 pm

Hi,
its impossible for me to use the eggdrop-1.6.19-ssl_and_md5_and_thread-durex.patch

heres what i done so far

apt get source eggdrop

then download an extract the eggdrop-1.6.19-ssl_and_md5_and_thread-durex.patch, after this:

root@squeeze:/tmp# patch -p1 < eggdrop-1.6.19-ssl_and_md5_and_thread-durex.patch
patching file aclocal.m4
Hunk #1 FAILED at 37.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file aclocal.m4.rej
patching file config.h.in
Hunk #1 FAILED at 33.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.h.in.rej
patching file configure
Hunk #1 FAILED at 315.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 856.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 8471.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 10034.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 10056.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 10154.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 10699.
Hunk #8 FAILED at 10827.
8 out of 8 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file configure.rej
patching file configure.ac
Hunk #1 FAILED at 150.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 161.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file configure.ac.rej
patching file Makefile.in
Hunk #1 FAILED at 57.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 89.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 99.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 113.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 128.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 136.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 146.
7 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.in.rej
patching file src/dcc.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 32.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/dcc.c.rej
patching file src/dccutil.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 33.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/dccutil.c.rej
patching file src/eggdrop.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 616.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/eggdrop.h.rej
patching file src/main.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 161.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 171.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/main.c.rej
patching file src/Makefile.in
Hunk #1 FAILED at 11.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 33.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 68.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 122.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 169.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 195.
6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/Makefile.in.rej
The next patch would delete the file src/md5/Makefile.in,
which does not exist! Assume -R? [n] Y
Apply anyway? [n] Y
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
The next patch would delete the file src/md5/md5c.c,
which does not exist! Assume -R? [n] Y
Apply anyway? [n] Y
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
The next patch would delete the file src/md5/md5.h,
which does not exist! Assume -R? [n] Y
Apply anyway? [n] Y
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
patching file src/mod/compress.mod/compress.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 36.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/compress.mod/compress.c.rej
patching file src/mod/irc.mod/chan.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 965.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/irc.mod/chan.c.rej
patching file src/mod/irc.mod/irc.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 256.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/irc.mod/irc.c.rej
patching file src/mod/irc.mod/irc.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 69.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/irc.mod/irc.h.rej
patching file src/mod/irc.mod/mode.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 1128.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 1139.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/irc.mod/mode.c.rej
patching file src/mod/module.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 471.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/module.h.rej
patching file src/mod/server.mod/servmsg.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 1293.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/mod/server.mod/servmsg.c.rej
patching file src/modules.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 29.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 94.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 128.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 564.
4 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/modules.c.rej
patching file src/net.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 52.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 64.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 88.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 96.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 307.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 448.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 627.
Hunk #8 FAILED at 651.
Hunk #9 FAILED at 944.
Hunk #10 FAILED at 1010.
10 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/net.c.rej
patching file src/net.h
patching file src/patch.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 32.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/patch.h.rej
patching file src/tcl.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 44.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 522.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/tcl.c.rej
patching file src/tclmisc.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 26.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/tclmisc.c.rej
root@squeeze:/tmp#

An now i got a few files in the parent dir which isn't normal i guess

root@squeeze:/tmp# ls
aclocal.m4.orig config.h.in.orig configure.ac.orig configure.orig eggdrop-1.6.19 eggdrop_1.6.19.orig.tar.gz Makefile.in.orig src
aclocal.m4.rej config.h.in.rej configure.ac.rej configure.rej eggdrop_1.6.19-1.2.diff.gz eggdrop-1.6.19-ssl_and_md5_and_thread-durex.patch Makefile.in.rej

when i use the -p0 option i got the same error messages above but a new DIR (eggdrop1.6.19-ssl) is created. But this DIR doesn't seem to be OK for my eys, i can't build a a new deb package out of this.
Ok Guys i am realy confused, i test also the rootie ssl patch, and patching works fine, but its immpossible to use the SSL function, guess its because of the 64bit Architecture.
Does anyone have any hint for me?

pseudo · Post by **pseudo** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:04 pm

Outdated eggdrop version, poor quality patch, source not obtained from official location.

Try ftp://ftp.eggheads.org/pub/eggdrop/sour ... hot.tar.gz instead of going through this pain.

Untar and follow the instructions in the INSTALL file.

hypnotoad · Post by **hypnotoad** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:06 pm

pseudo wrote:Outdated eggdrop version, poor quality patch, source not obtained from official location.

Try ftp://ftp.eggheads.org/pub/eggdrop/sour ... hot.tar.gz instead of going through this pain.

Untar and follow the instructions in the INSTALL file.

ah sorry i forget the version in the debian repo's are eggdrop 1.6.19
and the patch is also for 1.6.19 so this couldn't be the problem

but i guess the version you postet is the 1.6.20 (not sure because of the 1.8, is this the code the dev's working on right now?) and in the NEWS file are this comment:

Code: Select all

Full SSL support has been added for all kinds of connections, including certificate verification and authorization. See doc/TLS.

so it seems that SSL its now offical included, but than i am wondering why there is still a ssl patch by rootie *confused*

pseudo · Post by **pseudo** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:31 pm

Yeah, 1.8 is the dev version we (the dev team) are working on. We consider it stable enough for everybody to try it. Rootie's patch for .20 came before SSL was officially committed in CVS. I strongly recommend you to avoid it and either try 1.8 (preferably) or 1.6.19 + the older version of the ssl patch. As I've put my effort in developing ssl for 1.8, I'm not interested in providing support for 3rd party ssl patches and older versions though.

If you have any problems with 1.8, report here or get in contact with us in the way you prefer.

hypnotoad · Post by **hypnotoad** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:01 am

OK thanks for the explanation, the nice thing about using the sources from the Distri Repository is you can easy build a package and install/uninstall this by the packetmanager. Also if you read the Security Anounce Mailing List you get info`s about security updates relevatet to your'e installed version.
But You right you guys can't support old version, this is the job by the distribution Maintainer.
So i will try the actual stable with rootie's patch. (ah i see no 64bit support)
And maybe i will give the 1.8 a chance on my "playing" box.
Thanks for your'e help

hypnotoad · Post by **hypnotoad** » Sun May 01, 2011 12:57 pm

OK after compiling the snapshot of 1.8 the first thing i am wondering is the huge increase of the bin. The 1.6.19 bin was 1MB big, the 1.8 is 20MB.
And another thing is, after <./configure> | <make config> and <make install> i try to <make sslcert> and this fails with "Please run "make install" first." maybe its because i use the DEST= option after make install.

OK now i need to read the doc's, sorry if i start to annoy you

pseudo · Post by **pseudo** » Mon May 02, 2011 4:32 am

OK thanks for the explanation, the nice thing about using the sources from the Distri Repository is you can easy build a package and install/uninstall this by the packetmanager. Also if you read the Security Anounce Mailing List you get info`s about security updates relevatet to your'e installed version.

Sounds good, but is actually a terrible idea, when it comes to eggdrop. Distribution packages usually get it all wrong: apply buggy patches known to be bad, perform no testing and generally encourage bad usage patterns.
Considering how distributions blindly apply patches and how it takes an year to update when a new version is out, I wouldn't rely on distro packages for security.

So i will try the actual stable with rootie's patch. (ah i see no 64bit support)

NO! Rootie's patch for .20 is buggy and crashes almost instantly in most cases. Don't ever use it. You've been warned! You can't rely on 100% stability if you use 3rd party patches - in fact 1.8 is more stable and less buggy than most of them.

OK after compiling the snapshot of 1.8 the first thing i am wondering is the huge increase of the bin. The 1.6.19 bin was 1MB big, the 1.8 is 20MB.

That's because cvs builds default to make debug - the binary includes a lot of debugging symbols which increases it's size. If you compile .20 with 'make debug' it will grow to a similar size. And the opposite, if you compile 1.8 with 'make eggdrop' it will have normal size, but no debugging symbols. If you aren't running on a very restrictive shell, you'd better not disable debugging for 1.8 or we won't be able to help when you experience problems.

And another thing is, after <./configure> | <make config> and <make install> i try to <make sslcert> and this fails with "Please run "make install" first." maybe its because i use the DEST= option after make install.

Code: Select all

make sslcert DEST=/somewhere

In short, on a 64-bit system with ssl, you're alone in the dark (with monsters) if you use anything but 1.8.

hypnotoad · Post by **hypnotoad** » Mon May 02, 2011 12:06 pm

pseudo wrote:make sslcert DEST=/somewhere

ah OK this makes sense

pseudo wrote:In short, on a 64-bit system with ssl, you're alone in the dark (with monsters) if you use anything but 1.8.

ok you convinced me, i will use the cvs snapshot you post above and will give you a short feedback, thanks for your patience

hypnotoad · Post by **hypnotoad** » Mon May 16, 2011 11:46 am

hi,
Ok after two weeks of using the cvs snapshot, i can say it works like a charm.

Nice to see that egdrop is still under heavy developing after so many years.
THx bye

pseudo · Post by **pseudo** » Mon May 16, 2011 2:38 pm

Your feedback is appreciated.