Am 22.02.2006 um 22:46 schrieb Solar Designer:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:02:02PM +0100, Stanislav wrote:
In general is it a good idea ?
Probably not, unless you have a specific reason to stay with Owl 1.1
despite it being unsupported from now on.
Why not just upgrade to Owl 2.0? "make installworld" over your
existing
system should take care of everything in simple cases (that is, when
there is no or little third-party software installed on top of Owl).
With third-party software installed, there can be a few things for you
to fix manually (e.g., rebuild locally-built SSL-aware applications to
use the new version of OpenSSL).
Hello, of course i considered to upgrade the system. The only reason
are the 10% of additional installed packages. In other words my employer
wouldn't pay the necessary time to rebuild/upgrade the system.
Am 23.02.2006 um 00:22 schrieb Andreas Ericsson:
There is the (rather ridiculous) dependency on sysklogd >= 1.4.1-owl9
(or owl8). Stanislav, you can remove that Requires: line in the
spec-file and rebuild, but be aware that you won't get any logs from
it.
Hi, for an additional socket there is '-a' argument of running syslogd.
Solution would be a changed init script of syslogd.
Further investigations shows me dependencies of sed's '-i' argument.
I work around it for rpms specs with a patch file. Also a changed
init script is necessary.
But what isn't working is, building shared objects with libtool.
because of version mismatch ... haven't more time to look at it.
I tried to build statically and have some rpms now but i am unsure
of this statically version expect for higher memory consumption.
Other than that, I agree with Solar. You should upgrade to 2.0 rather
than backporting things to 1.1.
Is an old school type of employer that says, do not change the running
system, and i agree ;)
Thanks Stanislav
