On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam <madam(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has been overdue
> > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
> > > >
> > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to this
> > > important
> > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it, afaict.
> > > >
> > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring it in
> through
> > > Bodhi?
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the swift response!
> >
> > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the fedora
> > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it worked a
> little
> > differently then...)
> >
> >
> > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward compatible
> > > in terms of any interface people might use?
> >
> >
> > There are a few config file additions.
> > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
> > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
>
> You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the new
> location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody calls the
> binary by path.
>
Good point.
- Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
would be the standard way.
- What do you mean by "stable releases"?
Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
I meant F28 and F27, but
since this costs so little, I'd do the same
for F29 too.
Zbyszek