On 30 Apr 2001, at 2:08, Ewald Wasscher wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On 22 Apr 2001, at 14:34, Ewald Wasscher wrote:
> >> 22-4 TODO: update all binaries to the _latest_ versions available? Is
> >> this a good idea? That will probably use some additional diskspace
> > Yes, definitely. Fixes bugs and security problems. I've heard "lack
> > of updates" classified as the number one security problem.
>
> Someone just had to give that as an answer.
Like me, eh?
> The only problem is that
> some newer releases don't compile very easily with older
> glibc/gcc/binutils.
I've found that the problems are actually minor in most cases:
usually it is a missing pcap.h - most programs seem to think it's in
the main include directory instead of pcap/pcap.h (sigh)...
A few programs seem to use updated glibc networking headers, but most
things I've used don't have that problem.
> So do you think it will be sufficient to track e.g.
> the latest debian security advisories or should all binaries in your
> opinion really be the _latest_ versions?
I'd say they should be the *latest* versions - until you can't do it
any longer with the older glibc.
I solved the problem by switching to glibc 2.1 - the bridge utils
won't compile under glibc 2.0 any longer...
Ironic that Matthew (the fellow who did Materhorn) was the
bridgeutils maintainer, and has now left it stagnate until someone
else picked it up.
--
David Douthitt
UNIX Systems Administrator
HP-UX, Unixware, Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
