Hi,
the Linux builder RosBE has been upgraded to latest 2.1. It keeps using ninja for builds.
With my best regards,
--
Pierre Schweitzer <pierre(a)reactos.org>
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation
Hello,
Let me invite you to the monthly status meeting taking place last
Thursday of this month, 30th of May, 19:00 UTC. And that's today!
The meeting will be at irc://dev.reactos.org (Port 6667, no SSL) in the
channel #meeting, or as Pierre says. Note that the IRC service will only
be started shortly before the meeting. Your participation passwords will
be emailed to you shortly before the meeting starts, and they are going
to be different once again as they are not stored in any database.
Hopefully it's not much of inconvenience.
If someone still is not getting passwords sent before a meeting - please
email Colin or Pierre before the meeting started to get one.
The agenda will be posted shortly before the meeting, suggestions are
welcome (send them to me shortly before the meeting starts).
Regards,
Aleksey Bragin
Hi,
Please note that r59047 broke VMware testbot. It times out in
setupapi:install and fails to restart afterwards.
Regards,
Pierre
On 20/05/2013 15:01, buildbot(a)reactos.org wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder Linux_AMD64_2 VMWPlayer-Test while building ReactOS.
> Full details are available at:
> http://build.reactos.org/builders/Linux_AMD64_2%20VMWPlayer-Test/builds/869
>
> Buildbot URL: http://build.reactos.org/
>
> Buildslave for this Build: Linux_AMD64_2
>
> Build Reason: Triggerable(Linux_AMD64_1 KVM-Test Trigger)
> Build Source Stamp: 59050
> Blamelist:
>
> BUILD FAILED: failed test
>
> sincerely,
> -The Buildbot
>
>
>
>
--
Pierre Schweitzer<pierre at reactos.org>
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation
The following tests are introducing several bugs/regressions:
[ros-diffs]
[ekohl] 59021: [SYSSETUP] Enable the restore privilege before the call
to NtUnloadKey. Disable it immediately after the call to NtUnloadKey.
ekohl at svn.reactos.org
^This one introduces a potential regression at:
user32:clipboard From 49216 tests executed, aftwerdars 49208 (-8)shell32:appbar. From 61 test executed, afterwards 58
[ros-diffs]
[ekohl] 59022: [FASTFAT] Allow only readonly, hidden, system and
archive files attributes to be set for existing files. Other file
attributes must be ignored. This fixes several tests.
ekohl at svn.reactos.org
^This introduces a whole bunch of regressions easily spoted.
ole32:storage32oleaut32:typelibregedit:regeditsetupapi:miscsetupapi:parserEtc,Etc
[ros-diffs]
[ekohl] 59023: [FASTFAT] Implement a special case for existing files
which are opened using the FILE_OVERWRITE or FILE_OVERWRITE_IF file
disposition: New file attributes must be ORed with the exist...
ekohl at svn.reactos.org
^The following regresses:
zz_notepad++_6.1.2:1.installzz_notepad++_6.1.2:2.SaveAsDesktopzz_notepad++_6.1.2:3.OpenDocumentzz_notepad++_6.1.2:4.Ctrl-F.FindDialogzz_notepad++_6.1.2:5.Send_InputAmong others
Comparison chart: http://www.reactos.org/sites/all/modules/reactos/testman/compare.php?ids=17…
Hi,
due to critical load issues on reactos.org, the webserver has been taken
down now for an extra maintenance to address the issues.
Affected services are the following: reactos.org, doxygen.reactos.org
(still reachable but slow), jira.reactos.org (no auth), code.reactos.org
(no auth).
We cannot provide any ETA for the end of the maintenance.
We are sorry for the caused inconveniences.
With my best regards,
--
Pierre Schweitzer<pierre at reactos.org>
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation
On 2013-05-13 15:05, ekohl(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> Status = NtReplyWaitReceivePort(AuthPortHandle,
> (PVOID*)&LogonContext,
> - &ReplyMsg->h,
> - &RequestMsg.h);
> + (PPORT_MESSAGE)ReplyMsg,
> + (PPORT_MESSAGE)&RequestMsg);
As the Guy Who Officially Hates Casts™, I have to ask: wasn't the
previous version better for type safety? With the cast, an additional
[or missing] & can slip in and the code will compile without complaint.
Best,
Thomas
Hey Pierre!
Nice patch series, that takes ReactOS nearer to being secure. A remark though :
> /*
> - * enable the SeSystemtimePrivilege privilege
> + * Call SetLocalTime twice to ensure correct results
> */
> + Ret = SetLocalTime(&SetupData->SystemTime) &&
> + SetLocalTime(&SetupData->SystemTime);
This is a bit confusing, and the comment doesn't really help. Why would calling the function twice ansure correct result ? Also, this is likely to be optimized away by the compiler, or at least produce a report in static code analysers.
I know this isn't pure chance. Any hint as to why you wrote it like this ?
Cheers
Jérôme