Unbound - rootfile

Unbound - rootfile

[Wolfgang Apolinarski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

Hi everyone,

while trying to create a nice patch for the next patch-merge-window, I was
encountering an error that preventing the proper execution of "./make.sh
build".

Apparently the unbound update did not get a rootfile update. After changing
it, it worked fine (patch, see below).

Nevertheless, I still get warnings about the rootfiles of kbd, unbound and
cmake (and no, my patch does not change them).

Best regards,
Wolfgang
PS.: I'm currently testing everything on a fresh install of CentOS, to
mitigate side-effects from previous builds.
PPS.: You are not using a build server system of some kind, right?

--- a/config/rootfiles/common/unbound
+++ b/config/rootfiles/common/unbound
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ etc/unbound/unbound.conf
 #usr/lib/libunbound.la
 #usr/lib/libunbound.so
 usr/lib/libunbound.so.2
-usr/lib/libunbound.so.2.5.1
+usr/lib/libunbound.so.2.5.2
 usr/sbin/unbound
 usr/sbin/unbound-anchor
 usr/sbin/unbound-checkconf

Re: Unbound - rootfile

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1423 bytes --]

Oh yeah sorry. That was me.

I actually fixed this but forgot to push the patch. I have been searching for
why unbound kills itself right away after it starts up.

So next is quite unusable with DNS not working. If anyone has any clues I would
be happy to hear them.

I will merge your fix though.

-Michael

On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 17:06 +0200, Wolfgang Apolinarski wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> while trying to create a nice patch for the next patch-merge-window, I was
> encountering an error that preventing the proper execution of "./make.sh
> build".
> 
> Apparently the unbound update did not get a rootfile update. After changing
> it, it worked fine (patch, see below).
> 
> Nevertheless, I still get warnings about the rootfiles of kbd, unbound and
> cmake (and no, my patch does not change them).
> 
> Best regards,
> Wolfgang
> PS.: I'm currently testing everything on a fresh install of CentOS, to
> mitigate side-effects from previous builds.
> PPS.: You are not using a build server system of some kind, right?
> 
> --- a/config/rootfiles/common/unbound
> +++ b/config/rootfiles/common/unbound
> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ etc/unbound/unbound.conf
>  #usr/lib/libunbound.la
>  #usr/lib/libunbound.so
>  usr/lib/libunbound.so.2
> -usr/lib/libunbound.so.2.5.1
> +usr/lib/libunbound.so.2.5.2
>  usr/sbin/unbound
>  usr/sbin/unbound-anchor
>  usr/sbin/unbound-checkconf
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

FYI: Systemd CVE 2017-9445

[5p9]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 111 bytes --]

Hi,

did you see this Informationen?
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9445

BG, 5p9
-- 

Re: FYI: Systemd CVE 2017-9445

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 302 bytes --]

Yes, but we do not use systemd in IPFire 2 and in IPFire 3 the resolve daemon is
deactivated because it is grose.

-Michael

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 12:06 +0200, 5p9 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> did you see this Informationen?
> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9445
> 
> BG, 5p9

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]