From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] apache: Update to 2.4.38 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 18:24:10 +0100 Message-ID: <32e44623-2736-e564-9f37-265e1020f4ad@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <6ECE71F8-9FA1-4EE8-AFFF-F290B8B19C9D@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3781417120400265147==" List-Id: --===============3781417120400265147== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 04.02.2019 23:20, Michael Tremer wrote: > Did you overwrite the library file while it was in use maybe (by the OpenSS= H server)? I must confess: yes. :-( I did it the same way as I did before - with other updates. Even a reboot with the new 'libcrypto.so.1.1'-lib failed. If the running SSH session is the reason, how can I do this update - and survive a reboot? Best, Matthias >> On 1 Feb 2019, at 18:07, Matthias Fischer = wrote: >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> On 01.02.2019 18:47, Michael Tremer wrote: >>>> Right now, '2.4.38' is running here under Core 126. No seen problems >>>> with GUI or anything else so far. Log is clean. My only glitch is the >>>> d*** 'libcrypto.so.1.1'-lib from sse2. As I wrote, all of my update >>>> efforts ended in breaking the system. >>>>=20 >>>> One last thing I could do - would take some time - is to build under >>>> current 'next' and make a test installation on my testmachine (offline). >>> Hmm, I am slightly confused. >>=20 >> Understandable. >>=20 >>> So in Core 128, we are going to ship apache together with OpenSSL 1.1.1. = So that should be fine because the runtime version is the same as the built v= ersion. All older SSL libraries should be removed then. >>=20 >> Yes - that's what I'm assuming too. >>=20 >> In commit >> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Df8d407e5f7ff0812= beaa6b45eae18b57475aa3d8 >> Arne added the missing '/usr/lib/sse2/libcrypto.so.1.1' for i586 which >> seems to be the culprit of my problems. They should be solved with this >> update. >>=20 >>> So I suppose if the nightly build works, then the update should work, too. >>>=20 >>> Right? >>=20 >> Yes. What I still don't understand: why the manual updates always failed >> with "openssl bus error". :-(( >>=20 >> Best, >> Matthias >=20 >=20 --===============3781417120400265147==--