From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jun 27 12: 9:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A5837B486 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.4/8.12.4) with SMTP id g5RJ7kbM011210; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:07:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:07:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Jan Lentfer Cc: Henk Wevers , security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv In-Reply-To: <1025202594.2815.55.camel@jan-linux.lan> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 27 Jun 2002, Jan Lentfer wrote: > Am Don, 2002-06-27 um 20.18 schrieb Henk Wevers: > > [...] > > I allready updated apache for an example, only not after the new make > > world again. If i do this i will need to deinstall and reinstall the port. > [...] > > If I understood everything right, apache is ok by just rebuilding the > world since apache is dynamically linked? Am I right? Check the binaries installed by the Apache package using 'file' utility, but yes: our package *should* install dynamically linked binaries, and so a rebuild of world *should* be sufficient. This assumes that your apache package is recent enough that it uses the most recent version of libc. Speaking of which, we probably need to generate updated libc's for the compat libraries... Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message