| 1 |
They are dynamically linked against a lib (0.9.6) that is not binary |
| 2 |
compatible with the new lib (0.9.7)... hence the -soname is different. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
--Jeremy |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 10:07, Joel Osburn wrote: |
| 7 |
> Referring to Mateusz Neumann's post: |
| 8 |
> > revdep-rebuild --soname libssl.so.0.9.6 |
| 9 |
> > revdep-rebuild --soname libssl.so.0.9.7 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> When I run revdep-rebuild, it says "Checking dynamic linking...". |
| 12 |
> Aren't packages that are dynamically linked ones that don't require a |
| 13 |
> recompile? I though that was the whole point of dynamic linking... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So how does one find what is *statically* compiled against a specific |
| 16 |
> version? I asked this the last time there was an openssl vuln, and got |
| 17 |
> no answer besides that there are no easy answers! In the case of |
| 18 |
> openssl, be aware that if you run apache-1.x and use mod_ssl, you will |
| 19 |
> need to recompile mod_ssl after you've updated openssl. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> But are there others? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> -Joel Osburn |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
| 28 |
> |
Archives