On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:16:09PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> Actually, I was able to rebuild the src.rpm from that location on a FC4
> system, but I had issues when trying to install the binary due to
> conflicts between 32 bit and 64 bit OpenSSL packages (it's an AMD64
> machine).
You cannot update an i386 (or compatible arch like i686) package
with x86_64 package or vice-versa. If you have already installed
both (multilib situation) then you have to do both updates in
one transaction. Something like
rpm -Fvh openssl*{686,x86_64}.rpm
Otherwise you will get conflicts. You can use also 'localinstall'
request in yum with something like the above but then use a
configuration which turns of gpgcheck for packages not signed with
any of installed keys.
The easiest way to check architectures of already installed
packages will be with something like
grep openssl /var/log/rpmpkgs
as /etc/cron.daily/rpm script, which writes that log, is already
using a format with an %{arch} tag in it.
> It's probably trivial to work around, but I've little
> experience with x86_64 distributions.
See above.
> > You mean on line 185 in a patched crypto/dh/dh_key.c? Looking at
> > this code you are definitely right.
>
> So, if your packages include the bug, could you post a fixed version
> please?
I already did. If you see openssl-0.9.7f-7.10.3mj.src.rpm then
this has that change (which is easy to check in %changelog).
> > Is there any bugzilla report for that?
>
> I don't know.
Ok then, does Tomas Mraz is aware about the issue? :-)
Michal
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
