Bug#113945: marked as done (apache-ssl segfaults)
Your message dated Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:25:27 +0100
with message-id <20030715142527.GH12834@mirror.positive-internet.com>
and subject line This looks like a version mismatch for openssl
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Sep 2001 10:30:02 +0000
>From mark@ddf.net Sun Sep 30 05:30:02 2001
Return-path: <mark@ddf.net>
Received: from squit.ddf.net [195.82.124.200]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15ndrF-0000l8-00; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 05:30:02 -0500
Received: from squit.ddf.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by localhost (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7/Debian 8.12.0.Beta7-1) with ESMTP id f8UAStBK030938;
Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:29:56 +0100
Received: (from mark@localhost)
by squit.ddf.net (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7/Debian 8.12.0.Beta7-1) id f8UAStco030936;
Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:28:55 +0100
Message-Id: <200109301028.f8UAStco030936@squit.ddf.net>
From: Mark Sheppard <mark@ddf.net>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: apache-ssl segfaults
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.29
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.29
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:28:55 +0100
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: apache-ssl
Version: 1.3.20.1+1.44-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
# apache-sslctl configtest
Syntax OK
/usr/sbin/apache-sslctl: line 191: 30385 Segmentation fault $HTTPD -t
I was alerted to this from the weekly cronjob to rotate the log files.
I have upgraded libc6, libssl0.9.6 and openssl during the previous
week which might have introduced some kind of incompatibility.
Mark.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux squit 2.2.19 #1 Sun Apr 8 13:42:11 EST 2001 i686
Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB
Versions of packages apache-ssl depends on:
ii apache-common 1.3.20-1.1 Support files for all Apache webse
ii libc6 2.2.4-2 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libdb2 2:2.7.7.0-1 The Berkeley database routines (ru
ii libgdbmg1 1.7.3-26.2 GNU dbm database routines (runtime
ii libssl0.9.6 0.9.6b-2 SSL shared libraries
ii mime-support 3.9-1 MIME files 'mime.types' & 'mailcap
ii openssl 0.9.6b-2 Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary a
ii perl 5.6.1-5 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii perl [perl5] 5.6.1-5 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 113945-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Jul 2003 14:25:40 +0000
>From thom@debian.org Tue Jul 15 09:25:36 2003
Return-path: <thom@debian.org>
Received: from mirror.positive-internet.com [80.87.128.67]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19cQkC-0000bg-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:25:28 -0500
Received: by mirror.positive-internet.com (Postfix, from userid 1002)
id 14B8243502; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:25:28 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:25:27 +0100
From: Thom May <thom@debian.org>
To: 113945-done@bugs.debian.org, 113945-submitter@bugs.debian.org
Subject: This looks like a version mismatch for openssl
Message-ID: <20030715142527.GH12834@mirror.positive-internet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.4.20-686 (i686)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: 113945-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
This bug shows all the symptoms of having apache-ssl and php built with
different versions of openssl.
As such, and since the last comment to this bug was well over a year ago,
I'm going to close the report. Should you still be able to reproduce the
problem, please feel free to reopen the bug.
Cheers
-Thom
Reply to: