New comment by shahab-vahedi on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/26861#issuecomment-736564215

Comment:
> Would you mind using the patch directly from fedora?

Fedora's patch is not readily usable:
```
=> expect-5.45.4_3: patching: 0004-cross-misc.patch.
=> expect-5.45.4_3: patching: 0005-fix-buf-overflow-when-logging.patch.
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -up expect5.45/exp_log.c.orig expect5.45/exp_log.c
|--- expect5.45/exp_log.c.orig	2013-12-12 12:43:38.527854189 +0100
|+++ expect5.45/exp_log.c	2013-12-12 12:49:26.866576387 +0100
--------------------------
File to patch: 
Skip this patch? [y] 
4 out of 4 hunks ignored
=> ERROR: expect-5.45.4_3: do-patch_00-patches: 'patch -sl ${_args} -i ${_patch} 2> /dev/null' exited with 1
=> ERROR:   in _process_patch() at common/hooks/do-patch/00-patches.sh:34
=> ERROR:   in hook() at common/hooks/do-patch/00-patches.sh:51
=> ERROR:   in run_func() at common/xbps-src/shutils/common.sh:21
=> ERROR:   in run_pkg_hooks() at common/xbps-src/shutils/common.sh:245
=> ERROR:   in run_step() at common/xbps-src/shutils/common.sh:71
=> ERROR:   in main() at common/xbps-src/libexec/xbps-src-dopatch.sh:33
```

> Also, using `vsnprintf` means you can lose information, even if it avoids the buffer overflows...

If one doesn't one to lose the data, then the `bigbuf` should be handled dynamically. That would be a more error-prone patch than this one. Given a `*** buffer overflow detected ***: expect terminated`, I think loosing the data at offsets _2000+_ should be OK.