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 CD's.
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
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...
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.,
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 some exception
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 already.
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
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
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 long
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 at
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 is completely
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, you might have got lucky.
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 out
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
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 with 3.8, and
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:
|
|
| 1)
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]
and this:
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, pretty easy).
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]
19 matches
Mail list logo
