Compilation problem since SA-15:25 for FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE

[Gleb Smirnoff]

  Herbert,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:18:11AM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote:
H> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:24:03AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
H> > Guillaume Bibaut <freebsd-security at iaelu.net> writes:
H> > > Herbert J. Skuhra <herbert at oslo.ath.cx> writes:
H> > > > OK, with 'patch -p0 < /path/to/ntp-102.patch' I get only [...]
H> > > As far as I know, the SA does not mention 'patch -p0'. Shouldn’t this
H> > > be mentioned?
H> > 
H> > BSD patch(1) assumes -p0.  GNU patch(1) does not.  I assume Herbert is
H> > used to GNU patch(1) and used -p0 out of habit.  It is harmless, but not
H> > necessary.
H> 
H> I simply tried '-p0' because the instructions in the SA didn't work at
H> all! With '-p0' I end up with a src tree that builds at least (only a
H> few man pages failed to patch). Tested on stable/10 and head.
H> 
H> % fetch ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/10.2-RELEASE/src.txz
H> % fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:25/ntp-102.patch.bz2
H> % tar xfJ src.txz
H> % bunzip2 ntp-102.patch.bz2
H> % cd usr/src
H> 
H> Apply the patches from the other SAs (doesn't make any difference). They
H> apply cleanly.
H> 
H> % patch < ../../ntp-102.patch
H> 
H> A lot of *.c, *.h and *.orig files are created in the wrong place!
H> 
H> So can anyone confirm that the ntp patches in the SA are correct and we
H> are just too stupid to use patch?

What does patch -v say for you?

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.