[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:22:43 +0100
From: Maciek Pasternacki <maciekp@...hy.fnord.org>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Owl-current moved to glibc 2.3.x
On Boomtime, The Aftermath 20, 3170 YOLD, Solar Designer wrote:
>> >If, however, we make a 1.2-stable without a 1.2 release, I don't feel
>> >we'd have the right to abandon 1.1-stable like that. And maintaining
>> >three branches at once (1.1-stable, 1.2-stable, and current) would be
>> >too much overhead.
>>
>> 1.1 and 1.2 would be binary compatible, so 1.1 could possibly be dropped
>> from maintenance in favor of 1.2. Are there any strong suggestions
>> against this?
>
> If we make a 1.2 release, this can be done. If not, then it'd be a
> violation of what had been promised to those installing 1.1 release.
>
> As for technical problems, the only significant one is with Perl. I
> know that people have Owl 1.1 installs with many custom Perl modules
> built, and we must not force them to re-build all of those modules
> just to install a security update (that'd be the case if we either
> abandon 1.1-stable in favor of a 1.2-stable, or roll all stuff from
> current-pre-Big-Update into 1.1-stable).
There may be also problems with openssl -- binaries linked with it
require exact version of libssl.so and libcrypto.so, and openssl was
also upgraded in last -current.
--
__ Maciek Pasternacki <maciekp@...hy.fnord.org> [ http://japhy.fnord.org/ ]
`| _ |_\ / { ...you claimed all this time that you would die for me,
,|{-}|}| }\/ why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy... }
\/ |____/ ( M. J. Keenan ) -><-
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
