On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:06:31AM +0100, Patrick Schaaf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Michal Kubecek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is surprising as current evergreen 11.4 openssl update (version
> > 1.0.1p-68.2) does present exactly the same version (0x1000110f) which
> > was one of the reasons why I did cherry pick CVE related fixes from
> > 1.0.1 branch since 1.0.1p instead of simply upgrading to 1.0.1s.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. All is well (see my other mail)
Mid-air collision. :-)
> Just to be sure - this is what I see now with zypper -s search
> regarding installed stuff:
>
> i | home_mkubecek_branches_Evergreen_Maintained_openssl | patch |
> 1 | noarch | Evergreen 11.4 Test
> i | libopenssl-devel | patch |
> 5761 | noarch | openSUSE 11.4 Update
> i | libopenssl-devel | patch |
> 5634 | noarch | openSUSE 11.4 Update
> i | libopenssl-devel | patch |
> 5178 | noarch | openSUSE 11.4 Update
> i | libopenssl-devel | patch |
> 4669 | noarch | openSUSE 11.4 Update
> i | libopenssl1_0_0 | package |
> 1.0.1p-71.1 | x86_64 | Evergreen 11.4 Test
> i | openssl | package |
> 1.0.1p-71.1 | x86_64 | Evergreen 11.4 Test
>
> Is that patch at the top okay? What does that do? Testing artefact?
IMHO this is because I already filled in patchinfo in the project so
that zypper shows also a "patch" in the search, not only packages. The
way I understand it, a "patch" represents a set of packages provided
within one maintenance incident (e.g. the two packages seen here or the
whole set of kernel update packages). But I'm far from an expert on
this topic.
Anyway, I tested the update packages on two systems now (one testing
virtual machine, one real server) and everything seems to work so I
submitted the update (maint. request #364016).
Michal
_______________________________________________
Evergreen mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rosenauer.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen
