Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 12:00:42 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Owl-current and 3.0-stable 2013/04/08 snapshot On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Zenny wrote: > What is the timeline for Owl 4.0 compatible with RHEL6? I wish we had a timeline for Owl development (and could adhere to it), but unfortunately we don't. There was a tentative plan for when Owl 4.0 should have been released, but we're past that date already. > On 5/4/13, Zenny <garbytrash@...il.com> wrote: > > It is nice to learn about the update, but what makes me wonder is the > > upstream for RHEL4 is alreade EoL (end of life) about a year ago (2012 > > Feb as far as I remember). Yeah. We definitely don't recommend use of RHEL4/CentOS 4 packages on Owl now, except in cases where security and maintenance are unimportant. In practice, we've been using our own builds of so-called "Owl-extra" packages on top of Owl, but we never made those suitable for the public. Another option is NetBSD pkgsrc: http://openwall.info/wiki/Owl/pkgsrc We (Openwall team) haven't been using NetBSD pkgsrc on Owl ourselves, but apparently some Owl users do. > > It would be nice if Owl get upgraded to be compatible with the > > packages for RHEL6/CentOS6 which has an end of life for 10 years? If > > not at least, RHEL5/CentOS5 which alos has EoL for a decade. When we released Owl 3.0, the plan was to have Owl 4.0 mostly package compatible with RHEL6/CentOS 6. This is still the plan, unless Owl 4.0 gets delayed so much that the compatibility target shifts to RHEL7. We'll definitely not bother implementing package compatibility with RHEL5/CentOS 5. Alexander
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.