Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:20:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Passki <cykyc@yahoo.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recent 5.4-p1 upgrade issue (lib/libc.so.5) Message-ID: <20050524132012.59103.qmail@web50306.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050523220455.GA49814@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 02:57:40PM -0700, Jon Passki wrote:
> >
> > --- Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Look at how make installworld does the replacement safely.
> >
> > Ah, makes sense now, but let me regurgitate:
> > According to src/Makefile.inc1, installword sets up INSTALLTMP
> with
> > some nifty files, along with the files previously in the obj
> tree
> > setup by phases such as bootstrap-tools. Since these are
> defined
> > later on in the path before the user's ${PATH}, one doesn't
> shoot
> > one's foot off when updating the binaries, correct?
>
> Well, it does that too, but it also installs libc itself in a
> safe way
> using install(1).
I'm assuming the '-S' flag for install(1)? To me, it seems very
helpful too that it's using `install` in the obj tree since
/usr/bin/install is dynamically linked to libc. Or does it not
matter that install(1) is dynamically linked since the safe way may
not be dependent upon libc? If so, that would be cool. Thanks for
the feedback.
Jon
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050524132012.59103.qmail>