Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
Hi! Kent Stewart wrote: My question is how is the typical sysadmin going to tell which ones were built dynamically. file /path/to/program -- Toomas Aas | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * Feeling compressed ARJ you? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
On Friday 19 March 2004 06:48 am, Toomas Aas wrote: Hi! Kent Stewart wrote: My question is how is the typical sysadmin going to tell which ones were built dynamically. file /path/to/program That tells you whether the program is static or dynamic but it doesn't tell you if it used one of the openssl libraries. I think you are going to have to read a number of Makefiles to figure that out. A clever script person could automate it with find and exec but the quantity of information that you would still have to look at could be huge. Would it be worth the effort. I can rebuild my userland and kernel and be running it in around 30 minutes. You can't lookup very many programs, build the static ones that use openssl, and install them in that amount of time. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
I upgraded some servers to 4.9-stable a few weeks ago, not realizing that I really wanted releng_4_9. Since I have to apply this openssl fix anyway, I thought I could go from 4.9-stable to releng_4_9 no problem. The alternative, as I see it, is to wait for 4.10 to come and upgrade to that. Am I going to run into problems going from 4.9-stable to releng_4_9? If I can sneak in a second question. With this openssl fix, couldn't I just apply the patch, cd /usr/src/crypto/openssl make install ? Instead of the recommended buildworld fiasco? tia, dan ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
Dan Rue wrote: Am I going to run into problems going from 4.9-stable to releng_4_9? Nope-- this shouldn't be any problem. If I can sneak in a second question. With this openssl fix, couldn't I just apply the patch, cd /usr/src/crypto/openssl make install ? Instead of the recommended buildworld fiasco? Certainly you could do so, but the security fix would only apply to programs which dynamicly link the OpenSSL library. In order to fix any staticly linked binaries, you'd need to recompile them as well, which is why the buildworld procedure is generally recommended. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
On Thursday 18 March 2004 10:09 am, Dan Rue wrote: I upgraded some servers to 4.9-stable a few weeks ago, not realizing that I really wanted releng_4_9. Since I have to apply this openssl fix anyway, I thought I could go from 4.9-stable to releng_4_9 no problem. The alternative, as I see it, is to wait for 4.10 to come and upgrade to that. Am I going to run into problems going from 4.9-stable to releng_4_9? It would appear to me that you are fixing something that isn't broken. If I can sneak in a second question. With this openssl fix, couldn't I just apply the patch, cd /usr/src/crypto/openssl make install ? Instead of the recommended buildworld fiasco? How are you going to include the changed libraries in modules you don't rebuild? The advisory was even more specific, i.e., rebuild all ports that use OpenSSL. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
Kent Stewart wrote: How are you going to include the changed libraries in modules you don't rebuild? The advisory was even more specific, i.e., rebuild all ports that use OpenSSL. That's not exactly what it said. It said to rebuild all statically linked ports and 3rd-party apps: Note that any statically linked applications that are not part of the base system (i.e. from the Ports Collection or other 3rd-party sources) must be recompiled. Dynamically linked programs do not have to be rebuilt. -ste ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3
On Thursday 18 March 2004 10:55 am, Shaun T. Erickson wrote: Kent Stewart wrote: How are you going to include the changed libraries in modules you don't rebuild? The advisory was even more specific, i.e., rebuild all ports that use OpenSSL. That's not exactly what it said. It said to rebuild all statically linked ports and 3rd-party apps: Note that any statically linked applications that are not part of the base system (i.e. from the Ports Collection or other 3rd-party sources) must be recompiled. Dynamically linked programs do not have to be rebuilt. Ok, I over shot. I do that now and again :). My question is how is the typical sysadmin going to tell which ones were built dynamically. Most sysadmins I have met have never written anything deeper than perl or shell scripts. They hire people that program and use their expertise in different areas where things have to run. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
