Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Sendmail patch 001

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Erdely

unread,
Jun 19, 2006, 7:52:41 PM6/19/06
to
I was wondering if anyone knew why there had been two versions of
001_sendmail.patch for 3.9.

When the patch was first released, I downloaded it and updated some of
my systems. This was the patch I downloaded:
http://erdelynet.com/downloads/3.9/001_sendmail.patch-ver1

The file from when 001 was first released and the one at
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/3.9/common/001_sendmail.patch
differs by (wrapping will probably break the diff):

--- 001_sendmail.patch-ver1 Mon Jun 19 19:11:08 2006
+++ 001_sendmail.patch-ver2 Mon Jun 19 19:11:17 2006
@@ -2982,16 +2982,3 @@
(void) sm_snprintf(h, l, "%03o",
(unsigned int)((unsigned char) c));

-Index: gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/sendmail/version.c
-===================================================================
-RCS file: /cvs/src/gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/sendmail/version.c,v
-retrieving revision 1.24
-diff -u -p -r1.24 version.c
---- gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/sendmail/version.c 8 Apr 2005 16:00:52
-0000 1.24
-+++ gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/sendmail/version.c 25 Mar 2006 04:21:17 -0000
-@@ -15,4 +15,4 @@
-
- SM_RCSID("@(#)$Sendmail: version.c,v 8.145 2005/03/25 18:44:44 ca Exp $")
-
--char Version[] = "8.13.4";
-+char Version[] = "8.13.5.20060308";

--
Support OpenBSD: http://www.openbsd.org/orders.html

Joachim Schipper

unread,
Jun 20, 2006, 4:30:36 PM6/20/06
to
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:19:44PM -0400, Michael Erdely wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone knew why there had been two versions of
> 001_sendmail.patch for 3.9.
>
> When the patch was first released, I downloaded it and updated some of
> my systems. This was the patch I downloaded:
> http://erdelynet.com/downloads/3.9/001_sendmail.patch-ver1
>
> The file from when 001 was first released and the one at
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/3.9/common/001_sendmail.patch
> differs by (wrapping will probably break the diff):

Yes, this was covered on either misc@ or tech@, quite likely both - the
patch was not meant to change version numbers, and this error was soon
corrected.

Anyway, it should be mostly harmless.

Joachim

0 new messages