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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
> 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
concerning the glibc patch : normally the libc is loaded dynamically which
means that, if the libc API itself has not changed and unless you created
statically linked executables, I think you don't need to recompile anything.
If anyone think I am wrong, please tell .
Philippe
-Original Mes
