On 01/ 7/14 01:14 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote:
On 01/07/14 15:46, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 01/ 7/14 12:41 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote:
On 01/07/14 11:35, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
This release includes the fix for CVE-2013-6462, as well as other
security
hardening and code cleanups, and makes libXfont compatible with
libXtrans 1.3
on Solaris.
Should the libXfont_la_LDFLAGS be bumped to reflect this update?
I can't see why it would be updated - what would we update in it and why
do you think that's needed?
Builds from both this version and 1.4.6 produce:
${libdir}/libXfont.so.1.4.1
How would I know, looking at this file, whether the libXfont on my
system is the fixed one or not?
You wouldn't - library .so versions are not useful for tracking bug fixes.
The .so version has never changed for libXfont - it's the same since 1.0.
If the build output from both the old and the new produce the same file,
how would one distinguish between them? Aren't there situations when a
developer might want more than one version of a library installed on
their system (and use the *.so to pick one over the other)?
Not for libXfont.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
