Re: [dev] sta.li progress

Anyone volunteering to create an mkfile for bionic, this jam looks
like jam and should be avoided.
I volunteer to review it and to bring it in good shape.

-Anselm

On 13 October 2010 14:34, Jens Staal <staal1978_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no idea what the jam stuff is but I found this after some googling too
>
> https://www.metasploit.com/redmine/projects/framework/repository/revisions/10202/entry/external/source/meterpreter/source/bionic/libc/Jamfile
>
> 2010/10/13 Corey Thomasson <cthom.lists_AT_gmail.com>:
>> Excellent! I've been searching for something like this. I'll check it out.
>>
>> On 13 October 2010 08:29, Jens Staal <staal1978_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Are those issues already solved by
>>>
>>> http://www.metasploit.com/redmine/attachments/433/get_bionic_working.diff
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> 2010/10/13 Corey Thomasson <cthom.lists_AT_gmail.com>:
>>>> On 12 October 2010 20:58, Wolf Tivy <wtivy1_AT_my.bcit.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>I've managed to make it compile a good chunk of the object files,
>>>>>>but not malloc/free so its somewhat wasted.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'll talk eventually, keep up the pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I get a chance to go at it again I believe the android distribution
>>>>>>has some "clean" kernel headers included. I may try to move those to
>>>>>>wherever its looking now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it does, in fact I think it shouldn't need any system headers at all,
>>>>> if you point it to the paths in OVERVIEW.TXT. Is there some
>>>>> "include_path" environment variable you can set, or do we have to hack
>>>>> the jamfile? Or we could do it your way and move them. Worst case is a new
>>>>> makefile.
>>>>
>>>> there's a variable in the Jamfile INCLUDES_x86, the included header
>>>> files dont seem to do the trick though. Running into syntax errors.
>>>>
>>>>> Surely someone else must have dealt with this. Metasploit has been mentioned
>>>>> a few times, but I couldn't find any thing more than the blog post
>>>>> (issue report, whatever) that jens linked. Anyone have a link to more info?
>>>>>
>>>>> About uClibc, it's LGPL, so isn't static linking a bit marginal? For
>>>>> GPL-compatible stuff it's ok, but 9base is incompatible, so it may actually
>>>>> need to be ported to bionic. Have I got this right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 13 2010 - 14:37:59 CEST