Re: [gentoo-server] glsa-check and unused packages

[Pierre Cassimans]

do a

glsa-check -f 200412-02
glsa-check -f 200505-01

and the false errors will be gone.

Pierre

>From: "W.Kenworthy" <billk@×××××××××.au>
>Reply-To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
>To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
>Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] glsa-check and unused packages
>Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:26:01 +0800
>
>Try etcat -v, query l and qpkg -l: each seems to work via a different
>aspect of portage and I have found, particularly on older systems that
>one or more, but not always all will show discrepancies.  I found equery
>the least reliable when things are not right.  Surprisingly, glsa-check
>seems to to always (that I can remember) pick up that the bad version
>does exist and is installed - believe it!
>
>Billk
>
>On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 01:20 -0400, A. Khattri wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Owen Ford wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 11:49 -0700, Ben Munat wrote:
> > > > First, glsa-check claims that I'm vulnerable to 200412-02 and
>200505-01. The first is
> > > > pdflib and the second is various horde packages. However, I have the
>current versions of
> > > > these installed -- the versions that the glsa says I need to solve
>the vulnerability. So,
> > > > why would glsa-check say I'm vulnerable when I'm not?
> > >
> > > There are probably versions of those packages slotted.  I use emerge
>-Cp
> > > package to see which are installed.
> >
> > I have a similar problem - the recent changes in Apache coupled with
>some
> > updates meant rebuilding mod_php, mod_ssl and apache. glsa-check says Im
> > still vulnerable despite the updates. I dont have any slotting going on
> > either so Im still scratching my head.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>--
>gentoo-server@g.o mailing list
>


-- 
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list