From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr 22 18:14:03 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E45106564A
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:14:03 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6858FC13
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:14:03 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20080422120021.D18CD1065674@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <20080422120021.D18CD1065674@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <20080422181402.DDE2E2B45B3@mx5.roble.com>
Subject: Re: openssldoesn't -overwrite-base again (was:
	FreeBSD-SA-08:05.openssh)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:14:03 -0000

Dirk Meyer wrote:
> The -overwrite-base option was only functional on FreeBSD 4.x
> With FreeBSD 5.x the libs are spread in /lib and /usr/lib, so
> even if the ports overwrite base libs, some tools still use the
> old (unpatched) libs from /lib.

Couldn't this be addressed simply by removing the old libs,
possibly replacing with symlinks, in coordination with the
standard/base?

We shouldn't need to worry about base applications linked to the
old libs anyhow, unless a base app is making unreasonable
expectations. Better to fix those bugs in base, IMO, than have
multiple versions of key libraries.

Roger Marquis