On 2006.04.14, at 11:05 PM, Srebrenko Sehic wrote:
Well, I wonder how people who pre-orded their CDs, got them,
installed 3.9-RELEASE and run Sendmail are going to patch their
systems?
Use the source code from the CD's themselves and then download the
patch from
http://www.openbsd.org/er
So you say that the patch should go into OPENBSD_3_9 branch after 3.9
is *officially* released? Well, I wonder how people who pre-orded
their CDs, got them, installed 3.9-RELEASE and run Sendmail are going
to patch their systems?
I got 3.8 almost 2 weeks early, and seem to remember app
On 4/14/06, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. All patches past the _BASE tag always go into -STABLE. In this
> > case, correctly into OPENBSD_3_9. This is not special AFAIK.
>
> *sigh*
> HELLO... Topic is WHEN they go in.
> 3.9 is not official yet. This patch set went into -stable
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:16:17PM +0200, Srebrenko Sehic wrote:
> On 4/14/06, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/libsm/fflush.c
> >
> > OPENBSD_3_9_BASE is tagged...and that's it. (well..usually. I'm sure
> > there's som
On 4/14/06, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/libsm/fflush.c
>
> OPENBSD_3_9_BASE is tagged...and that's it. (well..usually. I'm sure
> there's some exception somewhere...)
>
> The patches were put into OPENBSD_3_9 (a.k.a.,
Piotrek Kapczuk wrote:
...
It was fixed. First time I've seen it happen before official release
though.
Well, security problems just before releases are not that common. ;-)
If I understand this right. This commit is in OPENBSD_3_9_BASE in cvs but it's
not on CD's. Isn't it ?
n...
A
Hi
2006-04-14, 10:37:47, you wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:19:28PM -0400, John L. Scarfone wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:05:37AM +0200, Joachim Schipper stated:
>> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote:
>> > > So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENB
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:19:28PM -0400, John L. Scarfone wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:05:37AM +0200, Joachim Schipper stated:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote:
> > > So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ?
> > > People say they received
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:05:37AM +0200, Joachim Schipper stated:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote:
> > So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ?
> > People say they received CD's. The CD's were burned with frozen
> > OPENBSD_3_9_BASE. Right ? So,
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2006-04-13, 03:24:29, you wrote:
>
>
> > Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> >> On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
> >>>
> If you had started from a 3.9-beta,
Hi
2006-04-13, 03:24:29, you wrote:
> Ted Unangst wrote:
>> On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
>>>
If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and
> yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else has long
> figured out: don't give long, detailed answers, as someone will try to
> pick it apart and take it out of context, analyzing the text as if it
> were a fine novel, rather than a quick "I need a break from helping
> people
Hi Nick,
Nick Holland wrote on Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:24:29PM -0400:
> Ted Unangst wrote:
>
>> yeah, except i think what nick was getting at was that upgrading
>> via source is going to be bad, upgrading via sets is easy.
>
> yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else
> has
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely
unsupported.
[building 3.9 source on 3.8]
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:34:55PM -0400, Geof Crowl wrote:
> >If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
> >jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely
> >unsupported.
> >
>
> and this:
>
> >
> >1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually,
On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
>
> >
> > If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
> > jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely
> > unsupported.
[building 3.9 source on 3.8]
> a
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:34:55PM -0400, Geof Crowl wrote:
| Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
|
| >
| >If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
| >jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely
| >unsupported.
| >
|
| and this:
|
| >
| >
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Geof Crowl wrote:
> Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
>
> >
> > If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
> > jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely
> > unsupported.
> >
>
> and this:
>
> >
> > 1) Start w
Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this:
If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But
jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely
unsupported.
and this:
1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy).
totally cont
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:03:58PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a new server to deploy and I don't want to wait unlit official
> release. So I'd like to compile 3.9 stable from source and I've faced a
> problem.
>
> I have a machine which runs 3.8-stable
> I've wiped ou
20 matches
Mail list logo
