From owner-freebsd-security Thu Mar 7 13:47:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d133.as21.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.139.199]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDA137B404 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:47:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g27FpVNu003945; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:51:31 GMT (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id g27FpPPP003942; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:51:30 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:51:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Martin McCormick Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patched openssh In-Reply-To: <200203072119.g27LJnG12274@dc.cis.okstate.edu> Message-ID: <20020307155037.M3443-100000@patrocles.silby.com> 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 Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Martin McCormick wrote: > This brings up another question. Why did leaving the old > ports distribution ruin the new one? When you unpack a tar ball, > any file with the same name as an older one clobbers the older > file so the only things left from previous distributions would be > files that aren't used in the new distribution so they certainly > will waste space, but What could have hung around from the old > stuff that polluted the new build? If there are fewer patches now than there were before, some old patches might survive. Presumably, these old patches would not apply correctly, which is what your previous error indicated. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message