Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 12:00:42 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: Owl-current and 3.0-stable 2013/04/08 snapshot

On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Zenny wrote:
> What is the timeline for Owl 4.0 compatible with RHEL6?

I wish we had a timeline for Owl development (and could adhere to it),
but unfortunately we don't.  There was a tentative plan for when Owl 4.0
should have been released, but we're past that date already.

> On 5/4/13, Zenny <> wrote:
> > It is nice to learn about the update, but what makes me wonder is the
> > upstream for RHEL4 is alreade EoL (end of life) about a year ago (2012
> > Feb as far as I remember).

Yeah.  We definitely don't recommend use of RHEL4/CentOS 4 packages on
Owl now, except in cases where security and maintenance are unimportant.

In practice, we've been using our own builds of so-called "Owl-extra"
packages on top of Owl, but we never made those suitable for the public.

Another option is NetBSD pkgsrc:

We (Openwall team) haven't been using NetBSD pkgsrc on Owl ourselves,
but apparently some Owl users do.

> > It would be nice if Owl get upgraded to be compatible with the
> > packages for RHEL6/CentOS6 which has an end of life for 10 years? If
> > not at least, RHEL5/CentOS5 which alos has EoL for a decade.

When we released Owl 3.0, the plan was to have Owl 4.0 mostly package
compatible with RHEL6/CentOS 6.  This is still the plan, unless Owl 4.0
gets delayed so much that the compatibility target shifts to RHEL7.
We'll definitely not bother implementing package compatibility with
RHEL5/CentOS 5.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.