Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3

2004-03-19 Thread Kent Stewart
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]"


Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3

2004-03-19 Thread Toomas Aas
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

2004-03-18 Thread Kent Stewart
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]"


Re: Downgrading 4.9-stable to 4.9-release-p3

2004-03-18 Thread Shaun T. Erickson
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

2004-03-18 Thread Kent Stewart
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

2004-03-18 Thread Chuck Swiger
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]"