Jeremy Messenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:57:58 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. 3.6.1 has the same bug, and 3.7 isn't out yet.
> http://www.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-announce/2003-September/64.html
We use OpenSSH-portable, whi
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:57:58 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update
> to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers
> look pretty on your screen?
A
David Rhodus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update
> > to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers
> > look pretty on your screen?
> Umm,
"Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update
> > to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers
> > look pretty on your screen?
> Apparently, yes.
No. 3.6.1 has the same bug, and 3.7 isn't out yet.
DES
--
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:47:44PM -0400, David Rhodus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> >Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update
> >to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers
> >look pretty on yo
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
David Rhodus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be
real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It
was released on April 1, does that not give one enough t
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:30:50AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its
> >>various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor?
> >>
> >>Scott
>
Scott Long wrote:
> Agreed. PAE was merged into -stable in three steps. Backing out the
> third step and leaving the first two steps removes the instability.
> Unfortunately, it was the third step that also was the most complex.
> In any case, we have 2 weeks to find the resolution before the dec
ovalov; Scott Long; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Release Engineering Status Report
> >
> >
> > David Rhodus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be
> > > real. Ops, now thats
Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote:
Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its
various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor?
Scott
I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related
problems, so there
> 3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce.
Is this a firewall induced panic? -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote:
> Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its
> various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor?
>
> Scott
I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related
problems, so there is no need for a
c: Maxim Konovalov; Scott Long; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Release Engineering Status Report
>
>
> David Rhodus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be
> > real. Ops, now thats right, we don'
Bill Moran wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It
affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several
SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x sec
Scott Long wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It
affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several
SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security
branches beca
David Rhodus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be
> real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It
> was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge
> this in ?
Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote:
:Bruce Evans wrote:
:> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
:>
:>
:>>PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It
:>>affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several
:>>SAs since PAE commit. They often can't swit
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It
affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several
SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security
branches because even RELENG_4_
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:43:00AM -0400, David Rhodus wrote:
> Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be
> real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It
> was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge
> this in ?
Merging new versions
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 06:11 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It
affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several
SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It
> affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several
> SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security
> branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses sev
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, 23:48-0600, Scott Long wrote:
> All,
>
> I'd like to give a status report for 4.x and 5.x for the developers and
> users who didn't attend the DevSummit this past weekend.
>
> 4.9:
> The 4.9 release is likely going to be pushed back for a few weeks while
> the recent instabili
All,
I'd like to give a status report for 4.x and 5.x for the developers and
users who didn't attend the DevSummit this past weekend.
4.9:
The 4.9 release is likely going to be pushed back for a few weeks while
the recent instability reports are tracked down. The target goal is two
weeks, but h
23 matches
Mail list logo
