[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2001, at 2:08, Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2001, at 14:34, Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>>
>>>> 22-4 TODO: update all binaries to the _latest_ versions available? Is
>>>> this a good idea? That will probably use some additional diskspace
>>>
>>> Yes, definitely. Fixes bugs and security problems. I've heard "lack
>>> of updates" classified as the number one security problem.
>>
>> Someone just had to give that as an answer.
>
>
> Like me, eh?
:-)
>> The only problem is that
>> some newer releases don't compile very easily with older
>> glibc/gcc/binutils.
>
>
> I've found that the problems are actually minor in most cases:
> usually it is a missing pcap.h - most programs seem to think it's in
> the main include directory instead of pcap/pcap.h (sigh)...
Hmm, I guess that means I'll have to try again to compile all those
bl%^$^% utilities.
> A few programs seem to use updated glibc networking headers, but most
> things I've used don't have that problem.
>
>> So do you think it will be sufficient to track e.g.
>> the latest debian security advisories or should all binaries in your
>> opinion really be the _latest_ versions?
>
>
> I'd say they should be the *latest* versions - until you can't do it
> any longer with the older glibc.
>
> I solved the problem by switching to glibc 2.1 - the bridge utils
> won't compile under glibc 2.0 any longer...
Ah well I've been working on my private glibc-2.1 based Eigerstein already.
> Ironic that Matthew (the fellow who did Materhorn) was the
> bridgeutils maintainer, and has now left it stagnate until someone
> else picked it up.
>
AFAIK the 2.4 kernel needs other bridge utils than Matthew's so I
suppose noone will ever pick it up.
Ewald Wasscher
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
