Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-28 Thread Jack Byers
My vote for best response by redhat for the year (lean, to the point, no extra junk, and also the funniest) Trond Eivind Glomsrød responded: >Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Keep in mind that somehow RedHat manages to fix major problems with the > > SAME version of the package (just a d

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-27 Thread Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Keep in mind that somehow RedHat manages to fix major problems with the > SAME version of the package (just a different RPM release). This has lead > me to believe that they really screw the configuration or that they hack > the code themselves. Yes, we are a

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Statux
> If a security patch is required for the C library, this seems to imply > that all applications compiled against the library require > recompilation. Am I mistaken, or do I have a whole lotta work ahead of > me? Not unless you have statically linked code that was bad from an old version of the

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Mike Burger
AIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 3:12 PM > Subject: Re: Applying glibc patch. > > > > That would depend greatly on whether you dynamically or statically linked > > your appli

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Randy Perkins
quot;Mike Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: Re: Applying glibc patch. > That would depend greatly on whether you dynamically or statically linked > your applications agai

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Mike Burger
That would depend greatly on whether you dynamically or statically linked your applications against the libraries. If you did static linking, then you'd have to recompile them. If they're dynamically linked, then you only have to update the libraries...the applications should make their calls to

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Mikkel L. Ellertson
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Curt Seeliger wrote: > Folks, > > If a security patch is required for the C library, this seems to imply > that all applications compiled against the library require > recompilation. Am I mistaken, or do I have a whole lotta work ahead of > me? > Nope. The only programs tha

Re: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Dave Reed
> From: Curt Seeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Folks, > > If a security patch is required for the C library, this seems to imply > that all applications compiled against the library require > recompilation. No, that's the benefit of dynamically linked (aka shared libraries) executables. You

RE: Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Philippe Moutarlier
ginal Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Curt Seeliger Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 9:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: me Subject: Applying glibc patch. Folks, If a security patch is required for the C library, this seems to imply that all applications com

Applying glibc patch.

2001-01-26 Thread Curt Seeliger
Folks, If a security patch is required for the C library, this seems to imply that all applications compiled against the library require recompilation. Am I mistaken, or do I have a whole lotta work ahead of me? Second, since I'm running 6.2, I'm looking for the appropriate patches (I've only s